eflaw_josub

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that only the requested article/paragraph is returned, the jo format constraints, and that ef_yd is required when using mst. This gives useful operational expectations without contradicting 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then a clear 'BEST TOOL' statement, parameter explanations, and illustrative examples. Every sentence provides necessary operational detail; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is remarkably complete for selection and invocation. It covers parameter formats, practical examples, and response types. It lacks error-condition details or explicit return-value structure, but these are not essential for basic tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter semantics. It explains each parameter (id/mst, ef_yd, jo format with zero-padding and branch suffix, hang, ho, mok encoding, oc override, type) and provides concrete examples for each, making parameter usage clear and unambiguous.

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 'Queries specific article/paragraph by effective date' and identifies itself as the 'BEST TOOL for querying specific articles', which distinguishes it from full-law search siblings. It provides concrete article examples and emphasizes that it returns only the requested section, avoiding large full-law responses.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for querying specific articles/paragraphs) and why it is preferable ('avoiding large full-law responses'). However, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of the highest bar for usage guidance.

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