openlex__zhlaw_search_laws

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds crucial behavioral details: FTS5 syntax (AND, OR, NOT, phrase search), BM25 relevance sorting, max 50 results, local caching, and a note to check metadata freshness via openlex__zhlaw_get_law_metadata. No contradictions.

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 succinct and well-structured using <use_case>, <important_notes>, and <example> tags. Each section adds necessary information without redundancy. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose.

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 (4 parameters, an output schema, annotations), the description covers use cases, important notes, and an example. It explains caching behavior and when to check metadata freshness. The output schema is present, so return values need not be described.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description meaningfully explains the query, limit, and sr_prefix parameters, including FTS5 syntax examples and how to filter by legal area. It does not mention the active_only parameter, but the other parameters are well-covered with practical guidance.

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 the tool does a full-text search across all ~970 Zurich cantonal laws using FTS5 ranking. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools: openlex__zhlaw_find_education_laws for the education law area and openlex__zhlaw_search_articles for finding articles within a known law.

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 use this tool (when the legal area is unknown) and when to use alternatives (for education law or within a known law). It names specific sibling tools and provides clear context.

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