legalize_laws

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a single page of results, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details about return format, filtering behavior, or any side effects, leaving much of the behavior undisclosed.

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, taut sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable and concise.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain the required `country` parameter, optional filters, pagination details, or the expected return structure, making it inadequate for reliable agent 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly references 'country' and 'single page' (pagination). It does not explain the other six parameters (`q`, `year`, `status`, `law_type`, `jurisdiction`, `per_page`), so most of the input schema is left semantically undefined.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search/list'), a clear resource ('laws'), and scoping constraints ('within a country', 'single page'). This distinguishes it from sibling `legalize_laws_all`, which likely covers all laws or multiple pages.

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 implies usage for country-scoped law searches with pagination, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like `legalize_laws_all` or `legalize_law_get`, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The 'single page' hint suggests a limitation relative to other tools, but this is only implicit.

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