legalize_law_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch' (implying read-only) but does not disclose authentication needs, response size, potential errors, or what 'full' includes. This is a significant gap for a tool that may return complex law payloads.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is exceptionally concise and front-loaded, containing only the essential verb and object.

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 tool has no output schema and lacks annotations, yet the description only says 'Fetch a full law payload.' It does not clarify what the payload includes, how to interpret the response, or how this differs from related tools like legalize_law_meta. Given the complexity of law data and the sibling toolset, this description is incomplete.

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% for two required parameters (country, law_id), and the description does not explain their format, allowed values, or how they affect the result. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but lack any additional meaning, so the description fails to compensate for low coverage.

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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'full law payload' clearly indicate this tool retrieves complete law data, distinguishing it from siblings like legalize_law_meta (metadata) and legalize_laws (list). The 'full' qualifier helps differentiate from partial or metadata-focused tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as legalize_law_meta or legalize_law_at_commit. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or filtering; the usage context is only implied by 'full law payload'.

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