Law metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: dates are Jalali (affects how the agent reads every returned value) and metadata is sparse for court votes/opinions. It does not cover failure modes for unknown IDs or any rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then usage, then two caveats (sparse metadata for opinions, Jalali dates). Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration plus the Jalali and sparse-metadata caveats give the agent nearly everything needed to interpret the result. Minor gap: the parameter is named 'ids' (plural) but typed as a single-digit string, and behavior on non-existent IDs is unstated.

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% and the single parameter already documents its source (qv_search), digit-only pattern and an example value. The description adds nothing about the ID beyond implying provenance via 'Use after qv_search', so the schema carries the weight and a baseline 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?

States a specific resource (a law's metadata) and enumerates exactly which fields come back: type, approving body, approval/notification/gazette dates and numbers, status, effective date, executing bodies. It implicitly distinguishes itself from full-text siblings by noting that court votes and opinions carry almost no metadata, but it never explicitly contrasts with qv_law or qv_amendments.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: use after qv_search to cite a law, or to check its type. It also flags a de facto when-not case (court votes and opinions have almost no metadata, so this tool adds little there). No alternative sibling is named as an explicit substitute, which keeps it below a 5.

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