search_laws (find a law by name) and search_in_law (keyword search within one law's articles) are superficially similar but the descriptions clearly distinguish scope: one operates over the catalog, the other within a single document. get_article is clearly distinct as a targeted retrieval. Minor risk of misselection only when an agent doesn't read carefully.

All three use snake_case verb_noun-ish patterns: search_laws, get_article, search_in_law. The phrasing between search_laws and search_in_law is slightly asymmetric (plural target vs prepositional scope), but the convention is otherwise predictable and readable.

Three tools is on the thin side for a legal research server covering 412 laws; there's little room for browsing, listing, or metadata exploration. It is not extreme, but it feels minimal rather than well-scoped.

Core retrieval (find law, get article, keyword-in-law) is covered, but notable gaps exist: no way to list/enumerate laws, browse by chapter or category, filter by effective date/domain, or follow cross-references. Agents needing discovery beyond a name search will hit a dead end.