get_law_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it clarifies that the tool fetches official consolidated text, can target a full act or a section, and instructs the agent to 'locate relevant provisions in the returned text.' It does not describe error cases or rate limits, but this is a read-only retrieval tool and the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains a small amount of redundancy—'Fetch the full act or a specific section' partially repeats the first sentence and the schema—but each sentence still contributes useful usage or workflow context, so it earns a score above baseline.

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 four parameters, a full schema, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: source, primary use case, section behavior, and how to process the returned text. It does not mention fallback to search_by_title when rs_number is unknown, but the schema and sibling list make this recoverable.

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; the schema already explains rs_number, section, language, and page with examples. The description adds minor reinforcement by mentioning 'specific title/chapter' and 'full act or a specific section,' but it does not materially extend the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Retrieve the official consolidated text of a Swiss federal act' and names the exact source, Fedlex. It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by declaring itself the 'PRIMARY tool for answering Swiss law questions' and explicitly prefers it over get_article unless an exact article number is known.

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 gives direct when-to-use guidance: 'always start here' for Swiss law questions, and states the condition for choosing get_article instead ('unless you already know the exact article number'). This is explicit enough for an agent to route correctly without opening other tool schemas.

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