Related regulations, votes and opinions

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent safety, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses the result shape (two groups, laws and others), ordering (newest first), volume expectation (hundreds for the civil code), and that court votes/opinions come back as titles only.

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 core purpose, then return structure, then a pointer to qv_law for reading results. Two sentences, dense but no filler; the volume/ordering note is arguably extra but useful for expectation-setting.

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 description compensates by describing the return groups and their fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to consume results. Safety is covered by annotations; only cross-sibling disambiguation is thin.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema (ids format/source, limit bounds). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (documents related to a law) and enumerates exactly what kinds: other laws, regulations, court votes, legal opinions that cite or interpret it. An agent can immediately distinguish this from qv_law (which reads an individual document) and the other siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent infers it needs a law IDS from qv_search and uses this to find citing/interpretive material. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus qv_amendments or qv_article_history, which cover related but distinct relationships.

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