search_law

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it searches only law names/titles, not article text, and uses both registered aliases and the e-Gov API. The limitation is clearly stated.

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, front-loaded with purpose, immediate limitations, and alternatives. Every sentence is informative and necessary.

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 complexity (search over multiple sources, sibling tools) and absence of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: domain (building laws), data sources, limitation, and referral to sibling tools. It is complete for an AI agent to decide when to use it.

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 schema provides a description of the 'keyword' parameter with examples. The tool description adds context about how the keyword is used (searches titles, both data sources) and explains the limitation. This adds value beyond the schema, though the schema already covers the parameter well.

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 it cross-searches building-related laws by keyword, searching both aliases and e-Gov API. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_law and get_full_law by specifying the search scope (title only) and providing alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use this tool (for article text search) and points to alternative tools (get_law, get_full_law), providing clear usage guidance.

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