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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results include verified provisions with official-source links and that the tool refuses when no norm exists, but it does not state permissions, read-only behavior, coverage limits, or what 'verified' operationally means.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds information: purpose, jurisdiction values, and the no-norm refusal behavior. The telegraphic 'jurisdiction:' fragment is still clear and wastes no space.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the main purpose, jurisdiction values, and refusal condition. However, it leaves locale unexplained and does not route the agent between this tool and its two siblings, so it is only minimally complete for correct invocation in ambiguous cases.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It provides valuable meaning for jurisdiction by listing accepted values (ru|in|us|uk|ca|hk), which the schema does not enforce as an enum, and implies that text is the legal situation to describe, but it says nothing about locale.

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 the resource and outcome: describe a legal situation and receive verified provisions with official-source links. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings oracle_lookup and verify_citation, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'Describe a legal situation' implies the use case, and 'Returns a refusal when the corpus has no norm' clarifies an important limitation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of oracle_lookup or verify_citation, and no when-not-to-use exclusions.

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