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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the tool makes no legal-advice claim and explicitly frames its output as information. It does not fully describe output format or side effects, but for a simple list/read operation the non-claim boundary is the most valuable behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core function first, then adds the key caveat. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the em-dash structure makes the boundary explicit without verbosity.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (structural checks) and the important contextual caveat (not legal advice). The sibling context shows this is a lightweight metadata/listing tool, and nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description avoids inventing parameter details and stays consistent with the empty input schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') plus a precise resource ('structural checks this server performs on legal-AI output'), and explicitly states the scope boundary ('what it never claims'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like review_legal_text, which would perform the review rather than describe the checks.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when an agent or user needs to know the structural checks performed by this server. It also provides a meaningful exclusion by stating the tool offers information, not legal advice. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the intent and boundary are clear enough for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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