Periksa pasal persis

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool fails closed when the phrase is absent or the reference is ambiguous, which is important for an agent deciding whether the result is reliable.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the main action and then states the failure behavior. Every part earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple two-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the core behavior well. However, it lacks explicit parameter semantics and guidance on selecting this tool over related siblings, so the overall context is adequate 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by clarifying parameter usage, but it does not define what forms 'regulation' and 'article' should take or how they relate to the 'frasa' (phrase) mentioned. The parameter names are intuitive but the description leaves the accepted input semantics ambiguous.

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 verb and resource: find the exact wording of an article ('bunyi pasal') along with page and provenance. It also distinguishes itself from search-oriented siblings by emphasizing exact-phrase lookup and fail-closed behavior on ambiguity or absence.

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 when to use the tool: when an exact article phrase or reference must be resolved with provenance, and it should fail closed if not found or ambiguous. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision somewhat implicit.

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