get_law

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool uses the e-Gov法令API v2, supports abbreviated law names, and performs retrieval. These are useful behavioral details beyond the schema, though it does not mention potential API errors, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The main function is front-loaded, followed by the API source and abbreviation behavior, both of which are essential and non-redundant with the schema.

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 read-only retrieval tool with a fully documented 5-parameter schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's scope and API source. It stops short of describing error behavior or expected response structure, but the format parameter already covers the markdown/toc output distinction.

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 input schema already covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level context by explicitly stating that abbreviations are supported and giving concrete mapping examples, which expands the law_name semantics beyond the schema examples.

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 action (取得する), the resource (法令の特定条文), and the domain (企業主導型保育に関連する法令). It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling search tools by emphasizing direct retrieval of a specific article rather than 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 implies usage: use this tool when you need a specific article from a known law, especially via e-Gov or with abbreviations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or when to prefer search_law or other sibling search tools, leaving routing largely to inference.

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