search_laws

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'smart filtering' but doesn't explain what this means operationally. It doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the 'Dict with search results' actually contains. The mention of 'ctx: FastMCP context for logging' in the Args section is behavioral information, but this isn't part of the actual input 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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. The opening sentence establishes purpose, followed by parameter explanations. However, the inclusion of 'ctx: FastMCP context for logging' in Args is confusing since this parameter doesn't exist in the actual schema, creating some inefficiency.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining parameters but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'Dict with search results', doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, and provides no guidance on when to use versus sibling search tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively by listing all 5 parameters with brief explanations. It clarifies that law_title and law_num support 'partial match', law_type includes examples like 'Act, CabinetOrder, etc.', and limit has a range '1-500'. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Japanese laws with smart filtering' - a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Japanese laws') with a qualifier ('smart filtering'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_laws_by_keyword' or 'find_law_article', which appears to be a similar search function.

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. With multiple search-related sibling tools (search_laws_by_keyword, find_law_article, batch_find_articles), there's no indication of when this specific search_laws tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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