search_indian_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it searches a specific act and returns sections but fails to disclose whether it is read-only, how results are ordered, or any additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits). The description is minimal.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose. The Args block is a bit formal but adds structure. Every sentence contributes meaning, though the Args format could be more concise.

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 there is an output schema (not shown) but no annotations, the description explains input well but omits output format or behavior (e.g., does it return relevance scores? How many sections typically?). For a search tool, this is a noticeable gap, but output schema may cover returns.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations: query is described as 'A legal topic or question' with an example, and k as 'Number of sections to return (default 5).' This provides value beyond the schema's bare type and default.

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 explicitly states 'Search the Indian Contract Act, 1872 for sections relevant to a query.' This is a specific verb ('search'), a clear resource (the Act), and distinct purpose. It differentiates from siblings: 'analyze_contract' suggests analysis, 'verify_citation' suggests checking references.

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 includes an example query ('agreement in restraint of trade') and a default value for k, offering practical usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_contract' or 'verify_citation', nor does it provide exclusions.

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