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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: it states the return includes the target norm plus up to 10 neighbors in each direction, and it explicitly requires a norm_id from a prior result. No contradiction exists.

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 efficient. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage context, prerequisite, return behavior, and an explicit pointer to an alternative tool. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description covers prerequisite (norm_id), return scope (target plus neighbors), and a clear alternative for broader context. For a tool of this complexity, it is complete and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to guess.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (norm_id, before, after) with ranges and defaults. The description reinforces the 'up to 10 neighbors' concept but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate due to full schema coverage.

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 explicitly names the action ('Get adjacent norms'), the object (paragraphs/articles before and after a target provision), and the ordering ('document order'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool legal_get_toc by noting the alternative for law-wide overview.

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 provides clear when-to-use context: 'Use when a legal question may span consecutive provisions or when surrounding context is needed to understand a norm's scope.' It also names the alternative tool (legal_get_toc) and requires a prior norm_id from legal_search or legal_lookup, setting expectations for prerequisites.

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