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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description earns credit by disclosing the return shape (a restatement plus enumerated open questions covering jurisdiction, dates, parties, forum, output, urgency) which matters because there is no output schema.

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 well-formed sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and the enumerated dimensions carrying real information rather than filler. Could be marginally tighter, but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it produces and over what dimensions. It is slightly thin on whether the query is anonymized before use (only in the schema) and on what the agent should do with the open questions next.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the important PII-stripping requirement on `query` and the enum on `area`. The description adds nothing beyond 'Australian legal question', which is already implied by the title; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('restates') and resource ('one Australian legal question') plus the secondary output (open clarifying questions). It is clearly distinguishable from research-oriented siblings like find_rules or get_precedent, though it never names a boundary against planner tools such as start_task or get_practice_area_prompt.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description suggests this is a first-pass triage step before research, but gives no explicit trigger, no exclusion, and no named alternative. An agent can infer 'refine before you research' but must guess the handoff point.

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