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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the important provenance behavior that legal_category terms are editorial-only, never derived from text, and record a named authority's characterization. It does not describe the response format, but for a simple taxonomy lookup this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core taxonomy is front-loaded, the usage directive follows immediately, and the special editorial caveat is placed last. Every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter enum tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool is, when to call it, and the key semantic distinction of legal_category. The only minor gap is that it does not state what happens if the optional vocabulary parameter is omitted or what the exact response shape looks like.

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?

Despite the schema having no descriptions and the parameter being a bare enum, the description gives each enum value a semantic gloss: incident_type (what happened), theme (what was hit), affected_group (who), and legal_category (what a named body says it amounts to). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 defines the tool as the controlled vocabulary behind the Palestine evidence graph and enumerates its four categories with concise glosses. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling evidence search/record tools, though it relies on an implicit 'returns/lists' action rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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?

'Call this before filtering so you use real slugs' explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool. It gives clear usage context but does not state exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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