get_local_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: rules in inactive, pending, ambiguous, malformed, missing-lifecycle, or historically indeterminate states fail closed. It stops short of explaining what 'fail closed' concretely returns, such as an error or empty result, and mentions no auth or side-effect details.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the operation and then precisely enumerates the fail-closed conditions. Every clause adds information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a long sibling list, the description omits parameter semantics, usage routing, and the concrete meaning of 'fail closed'. An agent would still need to infer or experiment to call it correctly.

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, but it never explains jurisdiction, rule_name, or as_of_date. The phrase 'lifecycle-aware' and 'historically indeterminate' weakly hints that as_of_date affects the lifecycle determination, but this is not stated explicitly or mapped to any parameter.

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 identifies a specific verb ('get') and resource ('structured local-law metadata'), and adds 'lifecycle-aware' to signal what kind of metadata is returned. This meaningfully distinguishes it from general search or article/retrieval siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_source_policy or search_law.

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 wording implies use when the agent needs structured local-law metadata with lifecycle awareness and fail-closed behavior. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_law, get_article, or get_source_policy.

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