get_law_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only retrieval operation and gives example parameters, but it does not disclose the output format, error handling, or the expectation that at least one parameter should be supplied.

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 well-structured: a brief opening sentence, a 'Usage examples' section, and a 'Main law IDs' section with bullet points. Every section is useful, though the reference list adds length; still, the core purpose is front-loaded and the layout keeps it scannable.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete: it defines the purpose, shows example usage, and gives helpful law ID references. It could explicitly note that at least one parameter is required and describe the returned text format, but the statement that it returns the full text of the law partially compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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?

Although the schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage), the description goes beyond it by providing concrete example values and a curated list of law IDs for major laws such as the Civil Code and Companies Act. This adds real guidance for constructing valid parameter values without external lookups.

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: '法令の全文を取得します' (gets the full text of a law), and clearly indicates two specification methods (law ID or law number). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_laws and get_article, as it is about retrieving entire law text rather than searching or fetching a single article.

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 provides clear usage context through examples showing exactly how to use law_id and law_number, and lists common law IDs for quick reference. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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