search_law_articles

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It states that the tool returns 'Markdown formatted text' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, or edge cases. The read-only nature is implied by 'search' but not explicit.

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 compact with a clear purpose statement, then structured Args and Returns sections. No redundant sentences, but could be slightly more concise by omitting 'Args:' label.

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 with output schema, the description provides the core functionality but lacks details on empty results, error handling, or when the tool is inappropriate. It is minimally adequate.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to both parameters: law_id includes an example format, and keywords specifies 'space-separated'. This goes beyond the bare schema titles.

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 searches for keywords within statute articles, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_legal_terms' by specifying 'articles of a statute', though it does not explicitly contrast alternatives.

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 vs. sister tools like 'compare_old_new' or 'search_statutory_interpretations'. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.

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