swiss_federal_law_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it searches via Fedlex but doesn't describe pagination, result count, language matching behavior, or whether partial/fuzzy matches are supported. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context is needed.

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, compact sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the platform and domain efficiently. This is appropriately concise for a tool with a single parameter and full schema coverage.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description is mostly adequate. It identifies the platform (Fedlex) and domain. However, it doesn't clarify what output the user should expect (list of citations? full text? official bulletin?), and with no output schema and no annotations, some return-format guidance would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter. The description adds the language constraint (FR/DE/IT/EN) which is meaningfully echoed in the schema description. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description contributes only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 specific verb+resource ('Search Swiss federal legislation via Fedlex') and names the platform, which makes the purpose reasonably clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but sibling tools are mostly clearly different domains (transport, geo, weather), so ambiguity with siblings is low. It could be stronger by noting what kind of results are returned.

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 implies this is for finding Swiss federal law text but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, what types of queries work best, or exclusions (e.g., cantonal law). Given the large sibling set of swiss_* tools, it's implied this handles legislation, but there's no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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