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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields (full text, chapter location, effective date, citable link), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only nature, error behavior when an article is not found, or law-name matching rules.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and followed by what is returned. Every clause 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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. It falls short on sibling routing, error handling, and any edge-case behavior.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters already have descriptions and examples (law name/id, article number). The description adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: retrieve the original text of a specified article of a law. It is clearly distinct in kind from search_laws/search_in_law, but it never names or differentiates against those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of the sibling search tools as alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the purpose itself.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (条号、摘录与链接), which is real added context, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ranking, or behavior when a keyword misses all articles.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste: scope first, then return values. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials, including return fields that the schema does not describe. It stops short of completeness by omitting any note on result limits or empty-result behavior.

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 100%, so both 'law' and 'keywords' are already documented in the schema, including the space-separated multi-keyword convention. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and scope: keyword search across ALL articles of ONE law ('在某部法律的全部条文里按关键词检索'), plus what it returns (article number, excerpt, link). The singular-law scope implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_laws, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the alternatives search_laws (cross-law search) or get_article (single-article retrieval). The agent must infer from the scope wording alone that this is the single-law case.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the corpus scope (currently effective, 412 items) and the returned fields (title, id, article count), which is real value, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, match semantics (exact vs keyword), or ranking.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the capability and its scope come first, the return shape second. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be re-read.

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 one-parameter search with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely self-sufficient and even compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields. The gaps are result-set behavior (limits/pagination) and match semantics, which an agent would still benefit from knowing.

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 100% and the single query parameter is already documented with two Chinese examples in the schema. The description adds only the high-level notion of searching "by name", without extra syntax, format, or matching detail, so the baseline 3 is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("按名称搜索中国现行有效的法律与司法解释") and scopes it precisely with "现行有效" and a corpus size of 412 items. It implicitly separates itself from siblings get_article (retrieve one article) and search_in_law (search within a law) via "按名称", but never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that are the obvious alternatives for article-level or in-law lookup. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the phrase "按名称搜索".

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