search_laws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context by explaining pagination ('one page', 'total_count and next_offset tell whether more pages exist'), but the enumerated return fields largely restate what the output schema already declares.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, followed by return/pagination and chaining guidance in that order of importance. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 15-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, pagination continuation, and how to hand off law_id. The only real gap is guidance on narrowing an overly broad query or combining filters, which is left implicit.

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 87%, so most parameters (asof, law_id, law_num, order, repeal_status, dates) are already documented in the schema. The description only maps facets at a high level and adds no format, matching, or combination semantics beyond that baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find Japanese laws') and enumerates the facets searchable (title, law number, type, subject category, promulgation date), which is more precise than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_law_text (full-text search), leaving that inference to the agent.

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 final sentence ('Use the law_id with the other tools') gives a clear chaining instruction for downstream tools such as get_law_outline or read_law_text. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over search_law_text or list_law_revisions, so no explicit exclusions are provided.

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