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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: outputs are summarised, cited, sourced from a curated knowledge base, and explicitly not legal advice—an important expectation-setting disclosure for an agent.

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 sentence packs domain scope, output format, source, and disclaimer with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and domain before the return details.

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 simple tool with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is complete: an agent knows what to ask, what it returns, and the legal-advice boundary. No output schema is present, but the return description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already well described in the input schema. The description reinforces that query is natural-language but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 purpose: answering legal research questions on contracts, IP, compliance, and startup law. It also names the output form—summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base—and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling ergora_* specialists by domain.

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 topic list and 'Business legal' framing make when-to-use clear relative to sibling specialists like ergora_finance or ergora_marketing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions beyond 'not legal advice,' so routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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