build_legal_stance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool aggregates results from statutes, case law, and preparatory works simultaneously, but does not disclose if it is read-only, any required permissions, or output format. Adequate but not rich.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence is essential and clear.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage. It does not describe the return format or how results are structured, which would be helpful, but it is mostly complete for a tool that aggregates search results.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context that it searches across multiple sources, aligning with the include_* parameters. However, it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool builds a comprehensive set of citations for a legal question by searching across multiple sources simultaneously. It distinguishes from siblings like search_case_law or search_legislation, which are more specific, by emphasizing the aggregation across statutes, case law, and preparatory works.

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 advises using this tool for 'broad legal research questions', implying comprehensive searches are appropriate. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or specify alternatives, the context is clear about its intended use case.

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