Law groups and approvers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful structural context (groups are two levels deep, `parent` marks sub-groups) but says nothing about list size, pagination, or whether both lists are always returned. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, then the usage rule, then the handoff instruction, with no filler sentences. The parenthetical lists are dense but each one earns its place by giving concrete trigger examples; slightly tighter phrasing would earn a 5.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, the id/code handoff, and the parent/sub-group hierarchy. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and use its results.

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 the single `query` parameter is already documented with examples. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining what the output values are for: the returned `id`/`code` (or name words) are meant to be passed to rk_search_laws as `group` or `approver`, which clarifies the semantics of the results.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists law groups (categories) and approving authorities. It also names the sibling it feeds into (rk_search_laws) and clarifies the two-level parent/sub-group structure, so the agent can distinguish it from rk_search_laws and rk_latest_laws.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use first when the user asks for one kind of document... or one issuing body') and names concrete triggers (court rulings, cabinet decrees, regulations, Majlis debates). It also states the downstream action: pass a group id or approver code to rk_search_laws as `group` or `approver`.

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