liet_ke_an_le

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions listing 90 items but does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format details (e.g., pagination), authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic listing capability.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields. The second adds filtering instructions and references to sibling tools. No wasted words, though the parameter information is sparse.

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 description covers the return fields (number, title, year, illustrative judgments) but omits important details like the meaning of the limit parameter, pagination behavior, or any ordering. Given the absence of an output schema, more completeness could be expected, but the description provides adequate basic context.

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 has zero description coverage for its two parameters (nam, gioi_han). The description only partially explains the 'nam' parameter by mentioning 'Lọc theo năm nếu cần' (filter by year if needed). The 'gioi_han' parameter is not explained at all; its default of 100 is stated in the schema but no meaning is added.

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 tool lists 90 official Vietnamese precedents with specific fields (number, title, year, illustrative judgments). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing xem_an_le_ct and tra_an_le_ct for full text and keyword search.

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 explicitly mentions filtering by year and directs users to other tools for full text (xem_an_le_ct) and keyword search (tra_an_le_ct), providing clear context on when to use alternatives. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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