法令一覧検索

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals it wraps the e-Gov Law API v2 GET /laws but does not mention pagination, return structure, rate limits, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a search tool.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key parameters. No redundant information; it is appropriately brief.

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 description is adequate for starting a search but lacks details about the response format or any constraints on the API. Since there is no output schema, the description could have specified the returned fields or pagination behavior, but it doesn't. The tool has 5 parameters, so a bit more context would help.

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 already provides descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little. It highlights law_title, law_type, and asof, which are already documented, and omits limit/offset entirely. It does not add meaningful usage context 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 searches a list of laws (法令一覧) using law name, law type, and as-of date. This verb+resource+parameters distinction separates it from siblings like get_law_data (which retrieves specific law details) or search_keyword (likely full-text search).

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 provides a clear context for usage: to search law listings by metadata fields. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose makes the intended use clear relative to sibling tools.

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