openlex__zhlaw_find_education_laws

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive. The description adds valuable context: it searches only active 412.x laws and if no results, automatically falls back to all legal areas with a note in the message field. There is no contradiction 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 well-structured with clear sections (<use_case>, <important_notes>, <example>), front-loads the main purpose, and uses concise language. Every sentence adds value, and the example illustrates usage efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with fallback) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers key aspects: scope, fallback behavior, related tools, and synergy with external MCP. It is comprehensive for a search tool.

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?

The input schema has a detailed description for the query parameter, but the tool description does not repeat it. However, the description provides an example (query='Elternrat', limit=10) and context for typical queries (e.g., 'Kindergarten', 'Schulleitungen'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. Given low schema description coverage (0% per signals), the description compensates adequately but could elaborate more.

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 clearly states it searches specifically in Zurich education law (Ordnungsnummern 412.x) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openlex__zhlaw_search_laws by being faster and more precise for education-related queries. It also lists specific laws covered (VSG, VSV, LPG, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 <use_case> tag explicitly states when to prefer this tool over sibling openlex__zhlaw_search_laws (e.g., when query is education-related). It also provides conditions for use (school, teachers, kindergarten, etc.) and mentions fallback behavior to all legal areas with a message hint. Additionally, it advises using other tools for articles and synergy with swiss-courts-mcp.

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