MyLastWill

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: the output is a codicil plus attorney-facing gift wording, it is not legal advice, and for Louisiana and North Carolina residents only the gift wording is returned. That state-based output restriction is a meaningful disclosure not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight sentences with the deliverable front-loaded and the caveat last; nothing is wasted. The final clause ("only the gift wording is returned") is dense and slightly ambiguous as written, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming both artifacts produced. It also flags the not-legal-advice framing and the LA/NC limitation. It could say more about what the codicil requires to be valid (witnesses/signing), but coverage is solid for a 9-param drafting tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including nested fund/causes/charity fields is already documented in detail. The description only restates that the gift may be a percentage or dollar amount, adding no syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema. 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 specific verb and deliverable: "Draft a codicil (a short signed amendment) that adds a charitable gift to a will the person already has, plus gift wording." The parenthetical defines codicil and the scope (existing will) distinguishes it from create_will and get_bequest_language.

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?

"Use when someone already has a will and wants to leave a percentage or dollar amount to causes or charities" gives a clear triggering condition and even names the two gift forms. It never explicitly routes to a sibling (e.g. create_will for people without a will), so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and the description need not restate it. It adds real context beyond annotations: the output is preparation instructions per form, and the tax rationale (traditional IRA/401k being efficient charitable assets). It does not disclose the output format or length, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the key constraint and rationale. No sentence is redundant filler given the domain framing.

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?

Covers the what, the account types, and the naming constraint for a 7-parameter nested tool with no output schema. Slightly incomplete in that it never states what the returned instructions actually contain or how account/percent inputs map to individual forms, which an agent might want before calling.

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 clear per-field docs including enums and the named_fund sub-object, so the schema carries the load. The description only generically echoes accounts and percentages and adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Prepare instructions') plus the exact resource list (retirement accounts, life insurance, POD/TOD accounts) and says the output includes the percentages to write on each form. This clearly distinguishes it from the will-based sibling tools, reinforced by the explicit 'No will needed.'

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?

'No will needed' implicitly routes agents away from add_charity_to_existing_will/create_will, and 'Charities must be named specifically' hints at the named_charities path over named_fund. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement of when this tool should not be used.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact return payload (will text, state-specific signing checklist, plain-English inheritance summary, pre-signing warnings), the non-legal-advice framing, and the significant jurisdiction limitation where gift wording is returned instead of a will. readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a tool that only drafts text and writes nothing.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the trigger, then the critical interviewing constraint, then return values and the jurisdiction caveat. Every sentence adds information an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 14-parameter nested tool with no output schema, the description explains outcomes and the one hard failure mode (LA/NC). The main remaining gap is routing guidance versus add_charity_to_existing_will and get_state_will_requirements, which an agent must infer.

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 coverage is 86% and the nested schemas document causes, giving_method, and family plan in detail, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description mentions the charitable-gift option but adds no field-level meaning (e.g., how causes/percent scaling or backstop interact) beyond what the schema already says.

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 specific verb and artifact ('Draft a complete U.S. last will and testament') plus the optional charitable-gift variant. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_charity_to_existing_will (complete new draft vs. amending) and get_bequest_language (clause text vs. full document).

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?

Explicit trigger ('Use when someone wants to make, write or update a will') plus a concrete pre-call instruction to interview the person and never invent names. It also carves out the LA/NC exception. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as add_charity_to_existing_will for someone who already has a will.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that full text is returned (useful, since there is no output schema) but says nothing about failure behavior for invalid or stale ids.

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 well-formed sentence with the action, the return, and the id provenance all front-loaded; nothing is wasted or buried.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, this gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly. Only the absence of any error/not-found guidance keeps it from being exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100% and the id property already documents 'Result id from search.' The description repeats that provenance but adds no format, length, or validity constraints, so 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 specific verb ('fetch') and enumerates the resource kinds it returns (guide, state page, FAQ answer, glossary entry), which is clearer than the title alone. It is not explicitly differentiated from the `search` sibling, though the id-from-search framing implicitly separates lookup from discovery.

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?

'by the id returned from search' clearly signals this is the follow-up call to the `search` tool, giving the agent a concrete trigger condition. It stops short of staking out when not to use it (e.g., use search instead when you only have a query string), so it is not a full 5.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that the output is sample wording for adaptation, but it does not provide additional behavioral details such as legal-advice limitations or output structure beyond the brief return statement.

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, front-loaded with the return behavior and followed by a concrete usage example. Every sentence contributes to selecting or calling the tool, with no wasted text.

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?

The description states what the tool returns and gives a typical usage scenario, and the rich schema covers the nested input parameters. Because there is no output schema, it could say slightly more about the returned wording, but the existing description is adequate for an agent to call the tool 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%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description mentions percentage or dollar amounts, causes, and named charities, but it does not add meaningful semantics 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return sample bequest wording' for a will or trust. It also scopes the operation to sample wording that the person or attorney can adapt, which implicitly separates it from siblings like create_will or add_charity_to_existing_will, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives a clear usage context with 'Use for quick questions like "how do I word a gift to charity in my will?"'. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare it against sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include statute links and cover a broad set of subtopics, which is useful context, but says nothing about return format detail beyond that. Adequate given the annotation coverage.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, then lists the covered topics compactly. No filler or redundancy; every clause conveys a substantive coverage fact.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what domains of information come back (witnesses, notarization, e-wills, tax, statute links), which is enough to call it correctly. It does not describe the response structure or edge cases like unsupported jurisdictions, a minor 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'state' parameter is fully documented in the schema (full name or two-letter code). The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or validation detail beyond that, so 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 specific verb ('Look up') and a precise resource ('how to sign a valid will in a U.S. state'), then enumerates the covered subtopics: witnesses, notarization, self-proving affidavits, holographic wills, e-wills/RON, and state estate/inheritance tax. This is clearly distinct from siblings like create_will or get_bequest_language.

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 description makes the retrieval context clear ('look up how to sign a valid will'), which implicitly separates it from the creation-oriented siblings (create_will, add_charity_to_existing_will). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the return content ('with what each gift would be used for'), but does not disclose format, pagination, or other behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and purpose, then adds examples and return context. No wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what the list contains and that each cause area includes what a gift would be used for. For a simple zero-parameter read-only list, this is nearly complete, though return format details are absent.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 verb and resource: it lists the cause areas MyLastWill supports for charitable gifts. It also gives concrete examples, making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as charity_beneficiary_designations or get_bequest_language, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'for charitable gifts' implies when this list is relevant, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus alternatives or what prerequisite context is needed. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by saying it returns ids rather than content, forcing a fetch step. It says nothing about result limits, ranking, or what an empty result looks like.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the resource scope front-loaded and the return contract (result ids) stated last. Nothing repeats the title or the schema verbatim.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, corpus scope and the id-based return. Only the practical shape of the results (count, pagination, whether ids are opaque) is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by enumerating the searchable domains (wills, estates, charitable bequests, estate tax, online signing), which tells the agent how to phrase queries and what the corpus will not answer.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus the exact resource (MyLastWill.org guides, state will requirements, FAQ, glossary) and the topic scope. It is distinguishable from generic siblings, but the overlap with the dedicated get_state_will_requirements and get_bequest_language tools is never acknowledged, so the boundary is not fully clean.

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?

'Returns result ids for fetch' implies the follow-up workflow with the sibling fetch tool, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this search over get_state_will_requirements or get_bequest_language, and no when-not guidance at all.

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