Map a term to statutory wording

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with a closed curated glossary. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the [] sentinel for a miss and the instruction never to present a personal translation as the statutory term. It stops short of describing the hit shape in detail, but the act_id/sections mention covers the essentials.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core mapping action before the routing advice and the failure mode. Every sentence carries weight, though the final clause is dense enough that it reads as slightly packed rather than crisp.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a hit yields (act_id and sections) and what an empty array means, plus the correct fallback behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or act on this tool's result 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'term' parameter is fully documented with examples (法定假日, 加班, 餐休, 'statutory holiday'). The description adds only the framing that input may be Chinese or everyday English; the substantive semantics live in the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('Map a ... employment-law concept to the statutory English') and names both the jurisdictional scope (BC and federal) and the payoff (act_id and sections). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like find_act, get_toc, get_section, and search_law.

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 explicitly says when to call it ('before search_law when the question is in Chinese or uses everyday words') and names the alternative it precedes, with a caveat to search each jurisdiction with its own terms. The empty-result path is also prescribed: try a more basic term or search with your own wording and disclose that you did.

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