law_article_search

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions a 'MySQL LIKE downgrade solution,' hinting at potential performance limitations but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits. The agent has minimal transparency into how the tool operates.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and existing output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify expected return values, edge cases, or how the tool handles input variations. The tool has two required parameters and a technical nuance, but the description does not equip the agent well.

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 0% and the description does not explain the meaning, format, or constraints of 'law_id' and 'article_number'. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 action (search by article number in legal text) and the resource (legal text). It distinguishes from general law name search by specifying article number and law ID, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'law_lookup' or 'search_clause_vector'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or any comparison to sibling tools such as 'law_lookup' or 'search_clause_vector'.

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