Swiss federal law (Fedlex)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the source is the official consolidated text, that it is the version currently in force, and that article links will be included.

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?

Two sentences carry substantial, non-redundant information: source, version, output feature, and scope limitation. Nothing is wasted, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the full input schema, the presence of an output schema, and the annotation set, the description covers the essential context: what source is used, which version, and what the output includes. It is not exhaustive about edge cases or parameter combinations, but the structured fields already handle those, so the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no detailed parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'article links' and 'federal law' loosely maps to the article and sr_number/query parameters, but it does not materially enrich the schema's parameter explanations.

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 the operation ('Quote federal law'), the specific source ('official consolidated text on Fedlex'), the version ('currently in force'), and a distinctive output feature ('with article links'). It also distinguishes itself from broader legal or informational tools by explicitly limiting scope to federal law and excluding cantonal law.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: quoting federal law from Fedlex. The 'Federal law only; cantonal law is not included' statement gives an explicit when-not-to-use boundary. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage scope is more than merely implied.

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