fedlex_search_laws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: searches only titles (not full text), defaults to in_force_only=true, and returns a structured envelope. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose, and uses structured XML tags for use_case and important_notes. Every sentence provides value, with no wasted 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?

For a search tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main use case, important behavioral notes, and return envelope structure. It is complete enough given the existence of an output schema and annotations.

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%, but the input schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (keywords, limit, language, in_force_only). The description adds an example but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'Durchsucht' (searches) the resource 'Systematische Rechtssammlung (SR)' by title and lists the returned fields (SR-Nummer, Abkürzung, Status, Link). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fedlex_search_gazette or fedlex_search_treaties.

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 description includes a <use_case> tag specifying legal/administrative research and an <important_notes> section clarifying title-only search and default in_force_only=true. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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