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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that verification is against a 'verified corpus' (implying read-only, no mutation) and explains the meaning of a negative result, but says nothing about latency, coverage limits, or what happens when jurisdiction is omitted.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed by the decision rule. The 'Legal Oracle:' prefix is mildly decorative but costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-field documentation is not required, and the description usefully pre-explains the found flag. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the unaddressed jurisdiction parameter leaves a real 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'code/article pair' signals those two parameters form the citation, but the third parameter, jurisdiction, is never mentioned and no formats or defaults are clarified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('does this citation exist in the verified corpus'), which tells an agent exactly what is checked. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like oracle_lookup or legal_breakdown by framing this as a yes/no existence check, though it never names those siblings.

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 a clear usage condition: 'Use before relying on any code/article pair,' plus the consequence rule 'found=false means do not rely on it.' It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for broader lookups.

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