build_legal_stance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches multiple categories simultaneously to aggregate citations, but it does not explain the output format, limit behavior, or time-aware retrieval details. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by a usage instruction. It is concise and front-loaded with no extraneous words.

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 adequately explains the tool's scope but lacks details on the output format (e.g., citations vs. full text) and behavior of the limit parameter. Given the complexity (multi-source search, 6 parameters), it is minimally complete but could provide more context.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema, but the context of 'broad legal research' helps infer the purpose of the query parameter. No additional meaning is added.

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 it builds a comprehensive set of citations by searching across statutes, case law, and preparatory works simultaneously. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_case_law and search_legislation, which perform single-source searches.

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 advises to use this tool for 'broad legal research questions where you need a holistic view,' which implies it is not for narrow, specific lookups. It could be improved by naming alternative tools for narrower queries.

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