search_legal_literature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it names each source's coverage and flags that full text is only sometimes available (作者授權者有全文, 報告全文需在官網下載, 臺大只取可定位卷期). It does not describe result format or pagination behavior, so it stops short of fully transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and scope, then a structured source list, then usage/routing and arg notes. It is on the long side, but every block (sources, routing, citation guidance) earns its place rather than padding.

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 multi-source search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers scope, source semantics, the follow-up retrieval path, and citation formatting. Only return-shape and pagination behavior are left implicit, which is a minor gap given the id→get_legal_literature routing.

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 compensates thoroughly: it defines keyword fields (題名、作者、主題) and the space-separation convention, source semantics with comma handling and empty=all, and critically that years are ROC years (民國年). This adds real meaning the bare schema cannot convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (搜尋法學研究文獻) and immediately bounds the scope: only official and open-access sources, explicitly excluding paid databases like 月旦/華藝/法源. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_legal_literature by naming it as the follow-up for abstracts/full text.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (official and open-access literature sources, enumerated one by one) and when-not (paid databases excluded). It also routes the agent to get_legal_literature for the detail step, so the workflow is unambiguous.

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