export_reg_get_law

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, and the description adds context about the specific law types it can access. But it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, pagination, or output format beyond stating it retrieves law text.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately mention the relevant law scope. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and scope. It is missing explicit output format details, but the statement 'get the text of the law' hints at the return value sufficiently.

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 100%, with both law_id and elm already well-described including examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieves the law text for a specified law ID ('指定された法令IDの法令本文を取得します'). It also names the specific export-control laws it covers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_law or get_annex.

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?

Provides clear context that this tool is for referencing export-control related laws such as the Export Trade Control Order, Foreign Exchange Order, and relevant ministerial ordinances. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like search_law for finding law IDs.

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