search_laws

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.