tra_an_le

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses pagination bounds (gioi_han ≤50, offset), response structure (tong_so, offset, so_tra, con_nua, ket_qua), and possible empty results with hints. It also details the return fields for each loai. Minor omission: no explanation of scoring ('diem') mechanism.

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 structured with a general statement followed by a bullet-like breakdown of each loai. All sentences are informative with no redundancy. Slight improvement could be explicit section separation, but overall efficiently communicates key details.

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, the description provides the full return structure. It covers pagination, loai options, and empty result behavior. Missing minor details: error conditions, scoring explanation. Still, for a search tool with multiple modes, it offers sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining all four parameters: tu_khoa as the search keyword, loai with three enumerated values and their return differences, gioi_han with max 50, offset default 0. Each parameter's purpose is clarified beyond the schema titles.

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 searches for Vietnamese precedents (ÃN Lá») by keyword with full-text ranking. It distinguishes three modes (loai) with specific return fields, making it distinct from sibling tools like liet_ke_an_le.

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 explains the three modes (chinh_thuc, ban_an, cau) and their typical use cases (full precedent, illustrative judgment, precise sentence). However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools or advise when to choose this over liet_ke_an_le or tim_ngu_nghia.

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