法令の目次（章・条の一覧）を取得

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It clearly describes what the tool does (retrieve structure) and implies it is a read-only operation. It does not discuss side effects, errors, or permissions, but for a simple retrieval tool this is likely adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first states the core action, the second gives usage context. No unnecessary words, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, the input, and the use case. The sibling tools provide context. No gaps.

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% (one parameter: law_id). The description adds value by noting that law_id comes from search_laws results, which helps users obtain the correct value. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 retrieves the structural outline (chapters, sections, articles) of a law given its ID, and explicitly mentions its use for browsing which articles to read. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools: search_laws (to find law IDs) and get_law_article (to retrieve a specific article).

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 implicitly guides when to use: 'どの条文を読むべきか当たりを付けるのに使う' indicates it's for initial orientation. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling context and the distinct purpose provide sufficient guidance for an AI agent.

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