search_laws

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the basic search behavior clear and enumerates the category values. It does not disclose result format, matching behavior, pagination, or any side effects, but the operation is a simple read-oriented search and the description is not misleading.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear category list and illustrative examples. There is slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the second sentence, but nothing bloated or irrelevant.

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 has no output schema or annotations, so some burden falls on the description to explain behavior. It adequately covers inputs and categories but does not describe what the search returns or any limitations. For a straightforward search tool this is workable, but richer detail would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds useful examples and repeats the category mapping, but it does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the operation ('法令を検索します') and the resource (Japanese laws), and adds the search dimensions keyword/category. It is meaningfully differentiated from the sibling names get_law_text and get_article by the search vs. retrieval framing, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 examples imply when to use the tool: searching for laws by topic, contract-related laws, or category. However, the description does not explicitly explain when to prefer search_laws over get_law_text or get_article, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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