search_historical_law

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'search' but does not reveal whether it is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This is severely lacking for a query tool.

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 extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but under-informative. It front-loads 'historical' context but sacrifices necessary details. A 3 reflects adequate but minimal structure.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (3 params, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination, or how results are ordered. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no param information beyond the schema. While acceptable, it does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 '[History] Historical law search' essentially restates the tool name 'search_historical_law' without adding specific verb or resource scope. It fails to differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_law' or 'search_precedents', leaving the agent unclear on what distinguishes this search.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling search tools, the agent cannot determine context or exclusions. The description offers no usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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