Search legislation

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

The annotations already indicate it is a read-only, open-world search, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: results are best-first, carry an answer_rules field that governs how the text should be used, and the query must match statutory English. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and the added context is substantial.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads purpose, then query constraints, then usage workflow. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes essential guidance, with no filler.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description explains the return shape (citation fields, snippet, answer_rules) and the required query style. It omits any mention of result limits or ordering beyond 'best first,' but overall it provides enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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%, with the limit and jurisdiction parameters fully described and the query parameter explaining matching is literal with no plurals or stemming. The description reinforces the query requirement for statutory English but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Search) and resource (current legislation for English statutory wording) and states what is returned: matching sections with citation fields and a snippet. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like map_term and get_section.

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 and when-to-use-alternatives guidance: call map_term first if the query is Chinese or everyday words, then read full text with get_section before answering. This tells the agent exactly how this tool fits in the workflow and when to choose other tools.

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