Telusuri perubahan peraturan

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary: it returns a timeline/trail and deliberately avoids guessing consolidated text.

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 entire definition is one focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope and ends with a meaningful limitation.

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?

Annotations and output schema cover safety and return-shape concerns, and the core purpose is clear. However, the 0% parameter coverage and lack of explicit sibling routing leave gaps an agent would have to infer.

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, but it only alludes to 'pasal' (article) and 'peraturan' (regulation). The 'asOf' parameter is never explained or clearly linked to the timeline concept, leaving its format and semantics undocumented.

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 names a specific action ('Periksa') and resource: the applicability timeline and article amendment trail. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating that it does not reconstruct consolidated text.

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 phrasing implies the tool is for history/timeline questions and warns against using it to obtain consolidated text, which is a useful contextual cue. However, it names no sibling tools and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions.

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