law_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by revealing that full-law responses can exceed 1MB and that jo is faster/cleaner for article-level queries. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't address auth/rate limits.

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 structure is clear with opening statement, IMPORTANT warning, args list, returns, and examples. It is slightly redundant because the first two sentences restate the same purpose, but otherwise each section 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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, this description is fairly complete: it covers all parameters, gives usage warnings, and provides recommended examples. It doesn't fully explain the exact semantics/relationships of lm/ld/ln, which is a minor gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by defining all 9 parameters, including a highly detailed format explanation for jo with examples and the KO/ORI values for lang. However, several parameters (lm, ld, ln, oc) remain cryptically described, preventing a higher score.

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 explicitly states it retrieves full law content by announcement date and 'complete text of a law.' This is a specific verb+resource and, given sibling names like law_search and eflaw_search, clearly positions law_service as the retrieval service rather than a search tool.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance for specific article queries ('ALWAYS use the jo parameter') and warns about large responses when retrieving full laws. It does not compare against alternative sibling tools (e.g., when to use law_search instead), so it falls short of a 5, but the in-tool guidance is clear and actionable.

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