Search new laws, regulations and bills

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds materially more: it runs the external Apify Actor tacps126/legislation-radar on the caller's own Apify account, costs roughly $0.003 per law, and enforces a hard $0.5 spend cap per call. It also discloses result ordering (newest first) and the default recency window — real operational facts an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: scope by source first, returned fields second, cost/ordering constraints last. The jurisdiction enumeration is dense but each item disambiguates coverage, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 zero-required-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly: coverage, jurisdiction set, recency default, ordering, external Actor dependency, and spend ceiling. Return fields need not be enumerated given the output schema, yet a brief listing is included without bloat.

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 kinds, keywords, countries, max_items, posted_within_days, and extra_input are all documented in the schema itself; the description adds only the ordering behavior and a per-law cost hint that reinforces max_items. The advanced extra_input escape hatch and the interaction between cost and max_items are never mentioned in the description, so it stays at the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (search) and resource (new legislation) plus the exact source registries (EUR-Lex, legislation.gov.uk, GovInfo, Federal Register of Legislation, Canada Gazette Part II) and the DBpedia-style record fields returned. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_gov_updates, search_tenders, or get_india_district_notices, which cover adjacent but distinct content.

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 establishes clear usage context: only legislation published by official sources across exactly five jurisdictions, newest first, defaulting to the last 7 days. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when not to use it (e.g., vs. search_gov_updates for non-legislative government news), so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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