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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description explains that results are reconstructed from a formalization and that checks include unreachable stages, dead transitions, and transitions entering no stage. It also usefully states that a stage with no exit is reported but not counted as a defect, which is important 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 reasonably sized and front-loads the core purpose, but the first sentence is grammatically awkward and the repeated reference to formalisation makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

Given one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid account of what is returned: stages, transitions, transition conditions, and specific graph defects. It could be more explicit about result formatting, but the essential call behavior is covered.

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 single package parameter already has 100% schema description coverage, and the description adds only the same behavior: omitting package lists instruments whose procedure is formalized. It does not significantly extend the schema's semantics.

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 that the tool reports the stages of a procedure and checks for structural defects in the procedure graph. It is specific about the resource and analysis performed, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool law_process_run.

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 implies usage: pass a package to analyze that instrument's procedure, or omit it to list instruments with formalized procedures. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as law_process_run or law_inspect.

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