explain_law_type

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes the tool as an educational/knowledge tool with no side effects. It does not mention read-only status explicitly, but the explanatory nature makes it non-destructive.

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?

Single sentence packs all necessary information (what, aspects, audience) without redundancy. Slightly dense but efficient; no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single param, no output schema), the description fully covers its purpose, input, and expected output (explanations). No gaps remain.

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 has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'name' and its description. The tool description adds significant value by listing concrete examples (法律, 政令), explaining alias resolution (施行令 → 政令), and confirming the parameter's purpose.

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?

Description explicitly states verb 'explain' and resource 'law type' (法令種別). It lists specific types (憲法・法律・政令 etc.) and aspects covered (制定主体, 階層上の位置, etc.), clearly distinguishing from siblings that retrieve actual law texts.

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?

Target audience (non-legal experts) is specified, and the purpose (confirming differences) is clear. While no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are stated, the sibling tools (search_law, get_law, etc.) imply this is for conceptual explanations, not text retrieval.

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