Search laws and regulations

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description still adds real behavior: no-filter default (newest first), 20 results per page, a performance caveat that full-text search is slower than title search, and Jalali date semantics (1405 = 2026). It also discloses the return shape ('total', 'more', up to 20 'laws' with 'code') despite there being no output schema.

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?

Two short blocks, front-loaded with the resource and searchable facets, followed by usage, then result/next-step guidance. Every sentence carries information — the exclusion note, the Jalali hint, and the code-to-rk_law_text handoff all change agent behavior.

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 an 8-parameter, no-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: default behavior with zero filters, page size, return fields, and the follow-up call for full text. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying that group and approver accept either an id or name words, that all filters are optional and ANDed, and that gazette dates are Jalali with a year-mapping example. It adds little on special_no or page beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search the Official Gazette's laws and regulations database (rrk.ir)') and enumerates the searchable facets (title, full text, group, approver, special number, gazette date). It also draws a hard boundary: 'This covers laws only: company registration notices ... are not openly searchable,' which lets an agent rule the tool out for a whole class of queries.

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 a clear when-to-use list ('find a law, regulation, Court of Administrative Justice ruling or Majlis approval') and routes to siblings for two follow-on needs: rk_law_filters for group/approver ids and rk_law_text to read a law's text. It does not address rk_latest_laws, even though it states that with no filters the tool 'lists the newest' — the exact overlap an agent would need resolved.

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