Cari sumber hukum

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: the search returns metadata, and results are not evidence of article content. This is a meaningful disclaimer that helps the agent set correct expectations about the tool's output.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the limitation about search results not being proof of article content is stated compactly in the second sentence. 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?

The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required, and the description gives the essential search limitation. However, the acronym HES is unexplained, the optional filters are not described, and no guidance is given on how to use the sources enum. This is a minimally viable definition but leaves clear gaps for an agent operating in an unfamiliar legal domain.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it mentions none of query, year, number, sources, or pageSize. The phrase 'Cari metadata' only restates the general purpose and adds no meaning to the parameter fields. The agent receives no guidance on how to form a valid query beyond the schema's basic types and constraints.

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 action and resource: 'Cari metadata sumber resmi hukum nasional dan HES' (search metadata of official national legal sources and HES). It clearly communicates that this is a metadata search, not a content retrieval tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool search_jurisprudence, so it misses 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 description implies the tool is for finding legal source metadata rather than retrieving full content or proving article wording ('Hasil pencarian belum menjadi bukti isi pasal'). This gives the agent some basis for choosing it, but it never states when to use this tool instead of search_jurisprudence, lookup_article, or verify_citation, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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