search_tax_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool searches the text of the Code and regulations terms and that a limit can be applied, but it does not describe result ordering, whether matches are snippets or full provisions, error behavior for invalid source values, or any other side effects. This is thinner than expected for an unannotated 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed immediately by a concise Args block. Every line adds useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema present alert and all parameters documented in the description, the core invocation guidance is complete. The main gaps are behavioral detail—such as result ranking or error handling—and explicit alternative routing, but those are partially covered by the output schema and the tool's obvious search intent.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: query as words or a phrase with an example, source as 'irc', 'reg', or 'all', and limit as maximum number of results. This adds meaning that the bare input schema does not provide, especially for the source parameter, which has no enum in 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a clearly bounded resource ('the text of the Code and the regulations'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_irc_provision, get_treasury_reg, and resolve_citation, which are for targeted retrieval or citation resolution rather than free-form full-text search. The purpose is immediately recognizable.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to find text in the Code or regulations by keyword or phrase. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as resolve_citation or find_definition, and it gives no 'when not to use' guidance. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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