tra_luat

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: ranking priority (title matches get higher 'diem'), possibility of empty results with suggestions (goi_y) for weak matches, and that long queries may yield low scores. This provides good transparency for a search tool.

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?

Description is fairly concise and well-structured with bullet points and emphasis. Some Vietnamese phrasing is slightly verbose, but overall effective. Could be tightened slightly but not overly long.

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?

Lacking an output schema, the description includes the return structure (tong_so, offset, so_tra, con_nua, ket_qua) and mentions empty results with goi_y. It covers pagination and error behavior, making it comprehensive for a 4-parameter search tool.

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 description compensates fully. It explains all parameters: tu_khoa (keyword), chu_de (optional topic, example 'Dân sự'), gioi_han (max 50), offset for pagination. Also describes return structure, adding value beyond the schema.

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 legal articles (ĐIỀU LUẬT) by keyword, specifying full-text search with diacritic-insensitive support. It differentiates from sibling tools like tra_an_le by emphasizing 'luật thành văn' (written law).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use short, precise keywords; avoid long descriptions; if empty, reduce to core terms or add chu_de. Also explains pagination limits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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