search_law

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search scope (titles/provisions, all types) but does not disclose behaviors like result ordering, limits, case sensitivity, or error handling. It adds little beyond the tool's name.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It provides useful scope information without wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, but the description only covers keyword search and broad types. It omits guidance on how the 'type', 'limit', and 'agency' parameters affect the search, and does not mention result format. It is adequate for a simple search but incomplete for the parameter richness.

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. It mentions 'keyword' and lists several law types that map to the 'type' parameter, but it does not explain the 'limit' or 'agency' parameters, nor the full set of enum values. The contribution is marginal.

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 the tool as a keyword-based legal search across titles and provisions, and explicitly lists searchable law types. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_by_agency or get_law_detail, which focus on specific filters or detail retrieval.

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 appropriate use cases: when you need to find laws by keyword regardless of type. It contrasts with agency/region-specific tools by stating it covers all legal types, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude scenarios.

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