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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool does not provide legal conclusions, which is a key behavioral trait, and describes the outputs it produces. It doesn't detail edge cases or error handling, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 a single sentence that packs the core function, output dimensions, and a critical limitation. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter classification tool, the description sufficiently conveys the role, outputs, and a caveat. Without an output schema or annotations, it does not specify the exact response format, but it provides enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

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?

The schema already covers the single 'text' parameter at 100% with a description ('使用者的案例事實或法律問題') that matches the tool's purpose. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema 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 '將使用者輸入初步分為' and enumerates the three concrete output categories (案例事實、法律問題或引註研究) plus additional outputs (領域、隱私風險與建議檢索詞). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are retrieval/search tools.

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 implies a preliminary classification role before legal research and explicitly sets a boundary ('不做法律結論'), giving clear context on when it applies. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with them, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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