get_law

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') but lacks explicit disclosure of safety (e.g., no destructive side effects). With no annotations, the description should clarify that it is read-only and does not modify data. It also doesn't mention required authentication or limitations.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without being verbose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential purpose. However, the absence of usage guidance and behavioral details makes it fall short of being fully complete, especially when considering sibling tools.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including the mutual exclusivity requirement ('Either lawId or lawNum is required'). The description adds no further semantic context beyond what is in the schema, resulting in baseline contribution.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'law metadata and a plain text preview', specifying the source 'e-Gov Law Search'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_article' and 'search_laws' by focusing on metadata and preview, not full articles or searching.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as needing the full text (use get_article) or searching by keywords (use search_laws). Users must infer from the tool name and context.

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