search_law_articles

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return behavior (only matching articles with a relevant fragment) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects. It adds some behavioral detail but not exhaustive transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately clarifying the output scope. No filler, every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although the description gives a basic idea of the return value (matching articles with a fragment), it lacks detail on the exact response format (e.g., fields, ordering, or how the fragment is chosen). Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate but only partially does.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description adds no extra meaning for parameters like law_id, query, limit, or search_in. It stays at the baseline expected when structured data already documents all parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action: searching for articles within a law that contain a given text, and explicitly contrasts with returning the entire law. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_law_structure or paginate_law_text by focusing on text-based article search and filtered output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a clear use case: when an agent needs to find specific articles containing a text without fetching the whole law. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unmistakable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.