export_reg_search_law

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that searches can target law names or provision content but offers no additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or behavior with no results. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 effectively communicate the tool's purpose and search capabilities. The information is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, containing no filler or redundant 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description could be expected to hint at return values or search behavior. It does not mention what the search returns (e.g., list of laws, metadata), nor does it address edge cases. Given the moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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% with both keyword and law_type well-described. The description adds minor context by clarifying that keyword can match law names or provision content, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 searches export control-related laws by keyword, with a specific verb ('検索します') and resource ('輸出管理関連の法令'). It distinguishes itself from sibling getters by emphasizing search over direct retrieval, and mentions searchable fields (law name and provision 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 implies use when needing to find laws by keyword, contrasting with sibling tools that fetch specific laws or annexes. While it provides clear context, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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