get_local_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' metadata, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or response structure. The behavioral intent is clear, but lacks detail.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. While brief, it contains no superfluous words, but could benefit from slight structuring to improve readability.

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?

Without an output schema, the description partially explains return content (documents, policy). However, it omits details like whether outputs are paginated, what 'metadata' specifically includes, or if there are limitations. Adequate for a simple lookup but not fully complete.

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 0%, leaving parameter meanings undocumented. The description mentions 'jurisdiction + rule name + documents + policy' but does not explain each parameter's role, format, or optionality (e.g., as_of_date). Only minimal value added beyond schema field names.

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 it retrieves structured local-law metadata, listing key components (jurisdiction, rule name, documents, policy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_law (search) and get_article (specific document), but could be more explicit about differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_law or get_source_policy. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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