build_legal_stance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait (simultaneous search across three categories) and implies a read-only operation through the word 'searches.' However, it does not describe the output format, potential for many results, or any performance/time implications of a broad search, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise behavior summary and then a clear 'when NOT to use' section. Every sentence earns its place.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main needs: what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from alternatives. It tells the agent the return is a 'set of citations,' which is sufficient at a high level, though it could additionally describe how the categories are combined or how limits apply.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning for parameters like limit, as_of_date, or include_case_law, but the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description's 'broad legal research' phrasing loosely aligns with query semantics but does not materially go beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Build a comprehensive set of citations for a legal question') and then clarifies the mechanism ('Searches across statutes, case law, and preparatory works simultaneously'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_provision and search_legislation, which are targeted lookups.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use this for broad legal research questions') and when not to, naming exact alternatives ('use get_provision or search_legislation instead'). This gives the agent a clear decision rule with no inference required.

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