drlaw_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context by stating that the API only supports HTML output and that the response schema is undocumented. This goes beyond the annotations to set expectations about return format and potential errors.

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?

Description is well-organized with sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. It is concise, though the first two sentences repeat the same idea ('Retrieve law-ordinance linkage statistics' vs 'retrieves statistical information about how national laws are linked to local ordinances'). The example usage is helpful.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately discloses that the response is HTML and undocumented, which manages expectations. It also provides an example call. Given the simplicity of the tool (1 optional param, read-only), this is complete enough, though it could be slightly more detailed about what the dashboard displays.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'oc' parameter as an optional OC override defaulting to env var. This clarifies the parameter's purpose, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'OC' stands for. Given only 1 parameter, this is adequate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves law-ordinance linkage statistics, with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('law-ordinance linkage statistics'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on the linkage between national laws and local ordinances, and mentions the HTML dashboard output.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The HTML-only note implies a constraint, but there is no mention of alternatives or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The sibling tools (law_search, eflaw_search, etc.) suggest related functions, but this description does not differentiate usage based on context.

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