get_law

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response shape is, whether there are errors, or what 'GREEN' means. The name suggests retrieval, but the description itself offers no behavioral detail.

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 short and front-loads the core resource before the args. The unexplained 'GREEN.' and odd capitalization slightly hurt clarity, but there is no fluff.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return expectations and usage context. It only says the result is a freedom-of-information act with deadline rules and gives the id source; it does not describe response fields, errors, or how this relates to siblings like check_deadlines and get_authority. For a one-parameter geter this is below minimally complete.

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?

The schema only states that id is an integer and required; the description adds that it is a numeric law id and, more valuably, that it comes from get_authority(...)['laws']. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this provenance meaningfully supplements 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 phrase 'One freedom-of-information act with its deadline rules' clearly identifies the resource and the relevant content, and the example ties the id to get_authority(...)['laus']. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve', and 'GREEN' is unexplained, but an agent can infer this returns a single law by id.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_authorities, get_authority, or check_deadlines. The only usage hint is that the id comes from get_authority(...)['laws'], which explains parameter provenance rather than selection context.

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