tra_van_ban

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool searches full text and can find parts omitted in codified versions (preambles, appendices, etc.). It also clarifies that the chu_de filter is for groups not yet codified. While it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, the read-only nature is implied and additional context like pagination defaults (offset/gioi_han) are not explained but are present in schema.

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 enough, with most sentences adding value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the contrast with tra_luat), but overall efficient. The warning about missing topics is useful.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the core functionality and differentiates from siblings. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., list of documents, structure) and does not cover pagination parameters. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to fully understand inputs and outputs.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'loai' with examples (Nghị định, Thông tư, Luật) and 'chu_de' with specific values (Đất đai, Thi đua) and its purpose. However, 'tu_khoa', 'offset', and 'gioi_han' are not described. The keyword parameter is obvious but pagination details are missing.

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 it searches full text of original documents (Official Gazette) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool tra_luat which searches codified articles. The verb 'Tìm' and resource 'văn bản gốc' are specific. It differentiates by stating it can find omitted parts like preambles and appendices.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Khác tra_luat... dùng khi cần bản gốc đầy đủ' (use when needing full original documents). It also gives a concrete example for land/emulation topics that are not in codified law, instructing to use this tool with chu_de='Đất đai'.

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