Check if a specific Chinese law article is real and current before citing it. Avoid hallucinated or repealed legal references by confirming the law name and article number.
核验一条法律引用是否真实存在（防幻觉）。
在引用《某法》第 N 条之前调用本工具，可以避免编造或引用已废止条文。
Args: law: 法律名，支持简称，如「民法典」。 article_no: 条号，如「1254」或「第一千二百五十四条」。
Returns: verified(bool) + 条文原文（存在时）/ 原因（不存在时）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| law | Yes | ||
| article_no | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contract (verified bool plus 条文原文 or 原因) and the anti-hallucination purpose, which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or rate limits.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a usage cue, then Args and Returns. Every section earns its place and nothing is padded, though the Args/Returns blocks partially restate schema structure.
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?
With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description correctly fills both gaps by documenting parameter formats and the return shape. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only edge-case behavior (e.g. what 'reason' values look like).
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: law supports abbreviations (「民法典」) and article_no accepts both Arabic and Chinese numerals («1254» or «第一千二百五十四条»). These format details are genuinely 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+resource ('核验一条法律引用是否真实存在') and adds the intent (防幻觉), so an agent immediately knows this is an existence-check rather than a retrieval tool. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like get_article or check_citations_in_text, which keeps it below a 5.
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 triggering condition: call before citing 《某法》第 N 条 to avoid fabricating or citing repealed articles. This is explicit 'when to use' guidance. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.