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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates the guarantees (identical questions, verbatim quote per answer, not_stated for silence, not_asked for unasked question types, no fabricated silences), states how non-comparable or unread documents are surfaced, and declares it will not produce scores or rankings. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then rationale, then guarantees, then exclusions — a logical order that respects the reader. It is somewhat longer than necessary, and the trailing fragment 'Automated reading of one document. Not legal advice.' is loosely attached, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior, exclusions, and result semantics — and it does, including what an answer looks like (quote-backed, not_stated/not_asked) and how incomparable documents are reported. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% for the single urls parameter, so the schema already documents the 2-5 https URL constraint and the same-kind-document guidance. The description adds the 'two to five services' phrasing but no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb and resource — answering eight fixed questions across two to five services — and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling check_policy by naming it as the single-service alternative. An agent can tell this apart from policy_changes_since and check_policy without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when ('two to five services at once'), an explicit when-not ('Do not use this for one service -- call check_policy'), an expectation-setting exclusion ('Do not expect a score or a ranking'), and the rationale for using it over manual reading. Nothing is left to inference.

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