tim_ngu_nghia

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses hybrid search (vector+full-text with weighted RRF), sources (an_le/dieu_luat), potential misinterpretations (e.g., 'nợ lương' → 'nợ công'), and return format (tong_so, ket_qua with do_tuong_dong, trich_doan, keys). This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 verbose but well-structured with sections: purpose, usage steps, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the key idea and then detailed guidance. While every sentence adds value, the length could be slightly reduced without losing essential information.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description fully covers behavior, best practices, return structure, and common pitfalls. It even provides a concrete example of reformulating queries. The tool is complex (semantic search with hybrid method), and the description equips the agent sufficiently.

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 coverage is 0%, but description compensates by explaining 'cau_hoi' as the query, 'nguon' with specific values (an_le/dieu_luat) and default, and 'gioi_han' as result limit with default 8. Could explicitly mention that 'cau_hoi' is required and 'nguon' default is 'an_le' in the description, but current text implies these through examples and context.

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 performs semantic search, understanding meaning beyond keyword matches. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tra_luat (FTS) and tra_an_le (exact lookup). The verb 'Tìm theo NGỮ NGHĨA' and explanation of hybrid search provide specific purpose.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (semantic understanding needed) and when not to (exact terms/numbers available, then use tra_luat/tra_an_le). Offers two-step best-use guidance for Claude: reformulating queries in legal terms and filtering results. This fully addresses when-to-use vs alternatives.

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