Status sumber hukum

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open-world semantics. The description adds the useful context that empty results should be checked against source health/freshness, but it does not add operational details such as pagination, response shape, or rate behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states what the tool does and why it matters, with no filler or repetition of schema/annotations. Every phrase 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?

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety/open-world behavior, the description is largely complete for a simple status tool. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'importantOnly' parameter, but that is already penalized under parameter semantics.

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%, and the single optional boolean parameter 'importantOnly' is never mentioned in the description. The parameter name gives a weak hint, but the description does not clarify what 'important' means, how it affects output, or the default behavior. The description should have compensated for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Laporkan') and resource ('kesehatan dan freshness sumber'), clearly stating that the tool reports source health/freshness rather than performing legal search. It also explains the purpose: preventing empty results from being misinterpreted as absence of law. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it loses the top score.

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 'agar hasil kosong tidak disalahartikan sebagai ketiadaan hukum' clearly signals when to use this tool: when a legal search returns empty and the agent should check whether source availability/freshness explains it. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives.

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