openlex__zhlaw_get_law_metadata

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds details: real HTTP request (1-3s), required network access, return fields, error handling (404/Timeout). No contradictions. Slightly above baseline because description adds performance and error context not in 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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (use_case, important_notes, example). Every sentence adds value. No fluff. Two short paragraphs with XML-like tags make it easy to scan.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, parameter format, error handling, and constraints. Complete and self-contained. Sibling tools are diverse, and this description clearly differentiates.

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% per context, but the schema itself includes a description for the single parameter sr_number with example and format. The tool description includes an additional example. Since schema already provides parameter meaning, description adds minimal extra value. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves current metadata of a law live from zh.ch. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it's the only tool with a live HTTP call, while others use local cache. Verb+resource is specific and 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?

Use_case section explicitly describes when to use: checking current status, recent changes, PDF version, ZH-Lex URL. It states it's the only live-HTTP tool, implying alternatives. Important_notes specify input constraints (only Ordnungsnummer, no abbreviation lookup).

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