Riset hukum ekonomi syariah

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context by enumerating the mapped categories (DSN fatwa, hukum positif, KHES, dalil, putusan), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as breadth of search or ranking of results.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and immediately specifies the full scope of what is mapped. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to purpose.

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 is simple with one required parameter and has an output schema, so the description only needs to convey what the mapping covers, which it does. Slight gaps remain around expected topic format and how results are organized, but these are not critical given the output schema presence.

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 does clarify that the 'topic' parameter can also be an 'akad' (contract), which adds meaning beyond the schema, but it lacks examples, formatting hints, or guidance on how specific the topic should be.

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, 'Petakan' (map), and identifies the resource: topics or contracts (akad) mapped to DSN fatwa, positive law, KHES, dalil, and related rulings. This is clear and distinct from generic search tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to draw a contrast.

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 the tool is for mapping a topic or akad across multiple legal source categories, which signals when it is appropriate, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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