search_law

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context such as using the e-Gov API v2 and auto-completion of abbreviations, but it does not disclose safety traits (e.g., read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects). The description partially compensates but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is concise: three short sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose, then API source, then auto-completion feature. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy.

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 four parameters (two with enums) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers search scope, API source, and auto-completion. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of law objects with titles, dates), which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

All four parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by mentioning auto-completion of abbreviations and the use of the e-Gov API v2, helping agents understand the underlying mechanism and data enrichment.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '日本の法令をキーワード・略称・分野で検索する。' (search Japanese laws by keyword, abbreviation, or field). It also specifies the use of the e-Gov law API v2 and auto-completion of abbreviations, making it distinct from siblings like get_law, search_fulltext, and resolve_abbreviation.

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?

The description implies usage for keyword, abbreviation, or field searches, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_fulltext or resolve_abbreviation. No usage exclusions or contextual cues are provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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