get_law_version_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions return type (JSON string) and error handling (Chinese error message), which adds some transparency. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe pagination behavior despite page/limit parameters, or disclose any side effects. The added value beyond schema is moderate.

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 follows a clear docstring format (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loads the purpose. While it is lengthy due to many parameters, each section is concise and relevant. No redundant sentences.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it omits discussion of parameter interactions (e.g., law_version_id vs law_number) and does not explain how pagination works beyond providing defaults. Annotations would have helped, but they 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%, so baseline is 3. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema descriptions without adding new meaning. No examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters are clarified beyond what schema already provides.

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 it retrieves a list of articles for a specific law version (取得法律版本包含的法條列表). The verb 'get' and resource 'law version contents' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_law_content or list_law_contents, which may cause confusion.

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 lists parameters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to apply optional filters. Usage is implied by the parameter descriptions, but no when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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