jp_search_laws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, pagination, or result details). It is adequate but not adding value beyond the 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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is perfectly sized for a simple search tool.

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 simplicity, the description and schema are sufficient. An output schema exists (indicated in context signals), and annotations cover safety. The description provides complete context for selecting and invoking this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description adds concrete examples for law_title (e.g., '民法' and '個人情報の保護に関する法律'), helping an agent understand the format and expected values. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 searches Japanese laws by (partial) title. The verb 'search' and resource 'Japanese laws' are explicit, and the method 'by (partial) title' distinguishes it from sibling tools like jp_search_by_keyword.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not mention alternatives or context. However, the sibling tool names hint at different uses, so an agent can infer but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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