search_law

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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the specific return fields (citation, section heading, identifiers) and the role in the get_law_text workflow, which annotation hints do not cover.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and free of redundancy. Every sentence contributes either to purpose, accepted inputs, output, or usage guidance.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description states what is returned and how it enables get_law_text, covering the main workflow. It omits details like result list limit or error behavior, but those are secondary for a search tool and the overall context (sibling tools) clarifies boundaries.

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 all four parameters are described in the input schema. The description mostly restates the query parameter's acceptable forms (citation, popular name, free text) without adding new detail, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's baseline.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'federal statutes (U.S. Code)', which distinguishes it from siblings like search_regulations and search_decisions. It also specifies outputs (citation, heading, identifiers) and the intended downstream tool (get_law_text), making purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly directs 'Use this first when you need a statutory basis', providing when-to-use guidance. It also describes the relationship to get_law_text by returning the identifiers that tool needs, effectively mapping the workflow and implying alternatives (e.g., get_law_text after search).

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