search_pt_laws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool attempts an API call to a national database, implying dynamic behavior beyond static text. However, it does not clarify whether the API call might fail or time out, what happens if no dynamic results are found, or whether the tool requires specific permissions or rate limits. The phrase '優先回傳' suggests ordering but without details on fallback behavior.

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 compact: two sentences that convey purpose and a hint of behavior. It front-loades the main goal and provides useful example keywords. However, the second sentence could be more concise by separating the API call detail from the static provisions. Overall, it earns its length without redundancy.

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 has one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description mostly satisfies basic completeness: it says what it searches, hints at sources (static + dynamic), and provides examples. However, it lacks details on what constitutes a valid keyword, what the output format is, and how to interpret results (e.g., whether static provisions always appear). For a legal search tool, an agent might need to know the domain and limitations, which are absent.

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 100% (the only parameter 'keyword' has a description), but the description adds a list of example keywords which is helpful. However, these examples are not complete semantics: the description does not specify the expected format of the keyword (e.g., exact legal text, partial match), whether it is case-sensitive, or if it supports complex queries. The tool's behavior of returning static provisions based on keyword is unclear from parameter semantics alone.

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's purpose: querying Taiwan's Physical Therapist Act and its enforcement rules. It mentions key static provisions to return (Articles 1, 12, 13, 14, 24) and notes a dynamic API call to the national legal database. However, the mention of '優先回傳' (prioritize returning) static provisions could be interpreted as a behavioral guarantee, not just purpose. The purpose is well-articulated but slightly conflated with behavior.

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 implicitly suggests use cases: querying Taiwan PT legal text. It specifies the keyword parameter and provides example keywords, which helps the agent. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., search_pedro_evidence, search_cpg_guidelines) which cover evidence and guidelines. No 'when-not' or alternative scenarios are mentioned, so the agent must infer from domain knowledge.

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