search_statutory_interpretations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the semantic scope (statutory interpretations) and does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what the response contains beyond the output schema, or any rate limits or auth requirements. The additonal context about the Ministry adds a content qualifier but no behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb ('Search') and resource ('statutory interpretations'), with a brief clarifying parenthetical. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the lack of usage guidelines and parameter semantics in the description leaves gaps, especially given the many search-related sibling tools. The core purpose is clear, but it is minimally complete.

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%, and the description offers no explanation of how the 'query' parameter should be used. The parameter name implies a search string, but there is no guidance on query syntax, language, or format, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Search for statutory interpretations' with the parenthetical specifying 'authoritative interpretations by Ministry of Government Legislation.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_law_articles and search_legal_terms.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives. The description only defines what it does, without mentioning any exclusions, alternatives, or specific scenarios where it should be preferred.

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