list_laws

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing laws), filtering capability, and alias display. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but as a list operation that is implied. The description is transparent enough for this simple tool.

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 two concise sentences in Japanese, front-loading the main purpose and then mentioning optional filtering and alias display. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no required parameters and well-documented schema, the description is sufficient. It doesn't describe the output format, but since it's a list and no output schema exists, this is acceptable. A minor gap is not noting the default all-domain behavior, though that is covered in the schema.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, with detailed explanations for 'domain' (including enum values) and 'show_aliases'. The description only restates these capabilities without adding new semantic details, so 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 clearly states the tool lists financial laws supported by the server, with domain filtering and optional alias display. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_law', 'search_law', and 'list_guidelines', which target specific laws, search operations, or guidelines respectively.

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 provides clear context: use this to view the available laws, filter by domain, or show alias mappings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling tools, so no additional guidance is needed.

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