search_law

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of e-Gov API v2, indicating external dependency, and states the cross-search scope. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or result behavior, but these are somewhat implied by the search action.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant information.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenario, scope, and API source. It lacks details on return format, but that is not critical given the simplicity. It is reasonably complete.

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 schema documents all parameters: keyword, limit, law_type. The description adds context that the keyword is used when the law name is unknown, but does not add further parameter-level detail 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 '法令をキーワードで検索する' (search laws by keyword) with a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies the use case (when law name is unknown) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_law by indicating it is for unknown names, and mentions cross-searching all laws.

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 '法令名が分からない場合に使用' (use when law name is unknown), providing a clear condition for use. It also notes it covers all laws, not just financial, which helps select it over potentially narrower tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools.

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