法令本文取得

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the API endpoint and JSON output, but it omits critical details such as error handling, rate limits, permission requirements, or the structure of the returned JSON. For a read operation, this is a notable gap in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and inputs without unnecessary detail. It is efficiently written and 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description to provide context. It discloses the return format (JSON) but not the structure or content of the law text. It also lacks any guidance on the optional parameters elm and law_full_text_format, though the schema covers them. As a result, the description is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; it primarily restates the main parameter. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving law text (本文) in JSON format using a law ID, law number, or revision ID. It also names the underlying API endpoint, which adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_laws or get_law_revisions, which handle different tasks.

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 implies usage when you have a law ID/number/revision ID and need the law text, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_law_revisions or get_attachment. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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