Ambil dokumen hukum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a bit of context by specifying that it returns complete metadata for a single regulation or MA decision, aligning with the read-only hints. It doesn't disclose error behavior or what happens for unknown refs, which is acceptable given the output schema.

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, direct sentence in Indonesian that front-loads the core action ('Ambil metadata lengkap') then specifies the scope and condition. No filler or redundant content – every word earns its place.

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 simple, read-only retrieval tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the core use case. But it leaves gaps: what counts as an 'exact reference' is undefined, and the distinction from search_legal_sources/lookup_article is only implicit. An agent would need schema enum and sibling names to fully contextualize.

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 only hints at 'ref' via 'rujukan persis' and leaves 'source' to be understood from enum values. No format for the exact reference is given, and no per-parameter explanations are provided, leaving the agent to guess what constitutes a valid citation.

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 states a specific action ('Ambil metadata lengkap' = get complete metadata), a specific resource type (one regulation or MA decision), and the condition ('dari rujukan persis' = from exact reference). It distinguishes from search-oriented siblings by emphasizing exact reference, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'dari rujukan persis' clearly indicates the tool is for exact-reference lookups, implying it should be used when a precise citation is available rather than for open-ended search. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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