find_related_laws

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

Discloses that it finds related laws via modifications, repeals, and references, but lacks details on behavior such as pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and could be more explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what relations are returned but does not describe the output format or potential pagination. Still, it provides enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 descriptions cover both parameters 100%. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., listing relation types). Baseline of 3 applies; no significant enrichment.

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 the verb 'Find laws related to a given legislation' and specifies the resource (laws). It distinguishes from siblings like get_legislation_details or search_legislation by focusing on relationships (modifications, repeals, references).

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?

Description provides context on when to use ('understand what a law modifies, what modifies it, and related legislation') but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. No sibling comparison is given.

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