search_statutes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: automatic expansion into legal language, direct citation lookup priority, and returned fields including score and via. It still omits permissions, ranking behavior, coverage limits, and the precise meaning of score/via.

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?

Structured as purpose, usage, Args, and Returns, with the core purpose front-loaded. There is slight redundancy between the introductory query-mode text and the query argument, but every section helps callers.

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 3-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers query modes, parameter meanings, and return fields. It omits explicit sibling routing, which is a minor gap but not an invocation blocker.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: query is defined as natural-language question or keywords, top_k defaults to 6, and law is optional with abbreviation support such as 民法典/消保法. All three visible parameters receive useful semantic detail beyond the bare schema.

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 (检索) and resource (中国现行法律条文), and clarifies supported query modes such as自然语言 and precise citation. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit; it does not name or contrast get_article/list_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?

Gives clear usage contexts: colloquial questions, keyword queries, and exact statutory citations with direct-lookup priority. It does not say when to prefer sibling tools like get_article or verify_citation, and offers no exclusions.

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