Legal HQ

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond intent matching — nothing about what the user gets back or whether it starts a session, which the sibling names (get_setup_session, get_starter_kit) suggest might be relevant.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a single routing sentence. The trailing list of user phrasings is somewhat long but each item earns its place as a distinct trigger.

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 parameterless, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke it. It lacks any indication of the response shape or the relationship to its sibling entry-point tools, which is a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related guidance is needed or missing.

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 resource ('Legal AI help for business lawsuits') and enumerates the user intents it serves, so an agent knows what the tool is for. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like get_case_prep_checklist or get_starter_kit, so routing still requires inference.

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?

It gives explicit, quotable trigger phrases ('AI legal help', 'help with a lawsuit', 'reduce legal fees', 'get organized for a lawyer', 'find a lawyer on contingency'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. There are no when-not conditions and no siblings are named as alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, self-contained read. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context — that it is a short checklist and free with no purchase required — but says nothing about the return format, length, or structure of the checklist itself.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero padding. The content of the checklist is front-loaded and the cost qualifier follows immediately.

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 no-input, read-only informational tool with safe annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and the cost/eligibility framing. The only gap is the absence of any hint about the checklist's format or size, which is minor here.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No parameter detail is missing or misleading.

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 resource — a pre-litigation case prep checklist — and its scope ('what a business owner should gather before meeting or hiring a litigation lawyer'). It is distinguishable from the informational siblings like get_starter_kit and get_setup_session, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 implied by the temporal framing ('before meeting or hiring a litigation lawyer'), which tells the agent the situation the checklist applies to. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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

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

The description says the tool 'Book[s]' a session, which is a scheduling/side-effecting action, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (no side effects) and openWorldHint=false (no external interaction) — yet the session is explicitly with an external party, 'Legal HQ'. The description contradicts both hints, and the boilerplate has no other behavioral disclosure to fall back on.

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 action and object front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though the 'get' vs 'book' mismatch slightly muddies the lead.

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?

There is no output schema, no parameters, and no annotations beyond the safety hints, so the description carries the burden — yet it never says what the tool returns or how the booking is actually effected (link, confirmation, calendar invite). For a simple zero-param tool this is minimally viable, but the contradiction with annotations leaves the agent guessing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 verb ('Book') and resource ('one-hour setup session with Legal HQ'), but it conflicts with the tool name get_setup_session, which implies retrieval rather than booking. An agent cannot tell whether this schedules a session or returns information about booking one. Purpose is therefore recognizable but genuinely ambiguous.

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?

It states the session is paid and what it covers, but gives no guidance on when to invoke it versus the listed siblings (get_case_prep_checklist, get_starter_kit, about_legal_hq), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The mention of 'paid' is a fact, not routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the payload includes commercial details (price and purchase link), but it does not state whether the content is static, cached, or locale-dependent.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the returned payload second, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the caller receives (details, price, purchase link). It is slightly thin on whether the returned content is fixed or varies, but nothing needed to invoke the tool 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and the description correctly implies a no-argument static lookup.

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 resource (the $99 Legal HQ Starter Kit) and enumerates exactly what is returned: details, price, and purchase link. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like about_legal_hq and get_case_prep_checklist, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or reference to sibling tools. Usage is only implied (the agent infers it should call this when a user asks about the Starter Kit), and nothing tells the agent when to prefer about_legal_hq instead.

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