search_law

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('search', 'obtain') and mentions abbreviation conversion. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond the apiKey parameter.

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 concise three-part sentence that front-loads key information (bracketed tag, purpose, output). Every part contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 without an output schema, the description adequately explains the output (lawId, mst) and context (identifier retrieval). However, it omits details on when apiKey is required and does not link to downstream tools, which would enhance completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond the overall tool context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'keyword search for law name → obtain lawId, mst' and 'for securing identifier before law inquiry'. It mentions automatic abbreviation conversion, distinguishing it from sibling search tools that target specific domains (e.g., search_ai_law, search_english_law).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for identifier retrieval but does not compare with sibling search tools or specify prerequisites like API key requirements.

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