build_legal_stance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it aggregates multiple legal source types, provides a structured response, and gracefully degrades on free tier (omitting case law and preparatory works). This extra information helps the agent anticipate output limitations without contradicting 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: three sentences each serve a distinct purpose (function, best-use scenario, alternatives/degradation). No redundant or filler content, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the essential information.

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's aggregative complexity and lack of an output schema, the description adequately conveys the scope (multiple source types, structured response) and limitation (free tier degradation). It could potentially list the return structure or error handling, but the current description covers the main decision-making context for an agent. The explicit alternative referrals complete the contextual picture.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description does not add significant parameter-level details beyond implying that 'query' is the legal question and 'limit' may apply per category based on the aggregation context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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's function: 'Build a comprehensive legal stance... aggregating statute provisions, case law, preparatory works, and cross-references into a single structured response.' It uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is 'best for broad legal research questions' and explicitly contrasting with targeted 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Best for broad legal research questions' and directs users to 'use search_legislation or get_provision for targeted single-source queries instead.' It also mentions the free tier degradation behavior, giving context on when the tool may be less complete.

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