get_sectoral_related_laws

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it indexes PIPC guides as-is (curation 0), splits official vs additional mentions, attaches sources for verification, normalizes aliases, and notes it is a starting point. This provides comprehensive behavioral context.

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 somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value and is front-loaded with purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 the tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers output composition (official vs additional), source attribution, and limitations. It is complete for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining default behavior (list sectors if unspecified), alias normalization, and the effect of include_additional, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it is a lookup tool for PIPC sectoral related laws, specifying 8 sectors and detailing what it returns (official laws, additional mentions). It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternative tools for unlisted sectors or cross-domain queries.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (as a starting point for sectoral mappings) and when not (for sectors not listed or cross-domain), directing to siblings like search_law, intelligent_law_search, get_pipc_curated_corpus.

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