日本の法令を検索

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 data source (e-Gov, government database), implies a read-only operation, and explains the two search behaviors. It does not mention rate limits or response format, but for a search tool this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise: four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value—source, modes, post-processing steps.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could explain the result fields more, but it does mention law_id and ties to sibling tools. The search modes are clearly explained. Slightly incomplete for a complex search tool, but still adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the search_in enum values but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not elaborate on query or limit beyond schema descriptions.

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 searches Japanese current laws from the e-Gov database, distinguishes two search modes (full-text and title), and explicitly connects to sibling tools (get_law_structure/get_law_article) via the law_id. This is a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 explains when to use each search mode via the search_in parameter and tells the user how to proceed (pass law_id to siblings). However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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