openlex__zhlaw_search_articles

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits such as case-insensitive substring matching, no FTS5, parsing law into articles, and cache requirements. These add significant value beyond the annotations which only indicate read-only and idempotent hints.

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 and well-structured with clear sections (<use_case>, <important_notes>, <example>). Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema and the comprehensive description covering purpose, usage, behavior, and an example, the description is complete enough for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters. The description adds an example usage and reinforces the meaning, but does not introduce new semantics beyond what is in the schema. However, the example is helpful for clarifying the intended use.

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 that the tool searches all articles of a specific law for a term, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting when to use this tool vs. openlex__zhlaw_get_article.

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 explicitly provides a use case ('when the law is known but the article is not') and an alternative ('for a specific article number, use openlex__zhlaw_get_article'). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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