legalize_laws_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses significant behaviors: paging automatically, stopping at max_pages, returning raw payloads, and providing a flattened list conditionally. It omits error handling, rate limits, and permission requirements, but for a search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and every phrase carries meaning. No filler or repetition, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

While the description covers paging and output shape, it does not explain defaults, filter interactions, or the exact meaning of 'best-effort', and there is no output schema to fill gaps. With 9 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient for complete operational context.

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 indirectly references 'country' and 'max_pages'. It does not explain q, year, status, law_type, per_page, start_page, or jurisdiction, leaving the agent without crucial semantics for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 states a clear action ('Search/list laws within a country') and a distinct behavior (automatic paging until exhaustion or max_pages). It differentiates from the sibling legalize_laws through the '_all' name and the explicit paging mention, though it does not directly name the alternative.

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 this tool is for exhaustive law listing/searching, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus legalize_laws or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated, leaving usage context only implied.

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