get_sectoral_related_laws

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses return structure (official_laws vs additional_mentions), auto-attachment of page/source, non-curation status, and its role as a starting point. It does not mention side effects or auth needs, but these are likely minimal as it is a read-only lookup.

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 front-loads the core purpose and is well-structured with key points highlighted using **. While verbose, it packs essential information without unnecessary repetition. Could be slightly more concise, but effective.

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's complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers return format, usage context, and limitations. It explains how the data is indexed and suggests next steps for cross-domain queries. Missing pagination details but appropriate for a lookup tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters. The description adds meaning: valid sector values, alias normalization, default behavior for missing sector (list all), and effect of include_additional parameter (default true, filters official only). This goes 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 performs a lookup of PIPC sectoral privacy guide mappings, returning related laws, lex specialis, and citation frequency. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_law and get_pipc_curated_corpus.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance (for sectoral mapping) and when-not-to-use (for missing sectors or cross-domain queries), directing to alternative tools (search_law, intelligent_law_search, get_pipc_curated_corpus). It also mentions automatic alias normalization.

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