list_statutes_laws

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free, requires an API key, is rate-limited, and that each entry includes specific fields. It stops short of mentioning pagination or response envelope, but for a simple list endpoint, this is solid coverage.

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 well-structured into three focused sentences/paragraphs: what it lists, how to filter, and cost/safety info. Every sentence adds value, and the alternative endpoint call-out is front-loaded within the second paragraph. No redundant content.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it specifies the output fields (since no output schema exists), explains filtering, and gives the alternative for deeper navigation. The free/rate-limit note adds operational context. No essential information is missing.

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 description adds minimal extra beyond the schema's own parameter description, only reinforcing the omit/pass behavior. It does not explain any syntax or formatting details, but none are needed for a simple enum parameter.

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 ('List') and resource ('distinct bodies of law') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by describing it as listing whole corpora, while explicitly pointing to `GET /us/statutes/divisions` for drilling into individual codes. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: omit `jurisdiction` to list all, pass a code to scope, and names the alternative endpoint for drilling into divisions. This directly addresses tool selection among siblings like `list_statute_divisions` and `search_us_statutes`.

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