search_by_statute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states the search purpose. It does not mention whether the tool returns a list, how exact or fuzzy the statute matching is, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The behavior is minimally implied but not transparent.

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 one short, direct sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to some missing contextual detail.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema is present, so the description does not need to explain return structure. However, given the absence of annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, the single-sentence description leaves meaningful gaps around parameter format and when to use this instead of related search tools.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'statute' parameter. It does indicate that the statute is the search key, but it does not explain expected format, whether article numbers or full statute names are needed, or whether partial matches are allowed. This is only minimal added meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 '按法條反查考過哪些題' clearly states the action: reverse-lookup previously examined questions by statute. It names the resource (statute) and the outcome (which questions have been tested), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_issue, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies the tool should be used when a user has a statute and wants to find related past exam questions. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_questions, search_by_issue, or get_statute_frequency, and provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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