search_taxlaw_interpretations

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 that the tool internally uses another search tool, but does not mention side effects, limitations, or differences in behavior. This is minimal 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 extremely concise with two phrases, front-loaded with the core purpose and the internal mechanism. Every part is necessary and no redundant words.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the search returns, or how it differs from the internal tool. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage for its 8 parameters, and the description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage beyond the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 it searches tax law interpretations and inquiry replies for backward compatibility, and notes it internally uses search_taxlaw_documents. This provides a specific verb and resource, and hints at differentiation from the sibling tool by mentioning internal delegation.

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 phrase 'backward compatibility' implies that this tool is for legacy use, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. the internal search_taxlaw_documents. The description provides context but lacks explicit usage guidance or alternatives.

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