build_legal_stance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool searches multiple sources and that case law and preparatory works coverage depends on dataset tier. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the behavioral details provided are sufficient for an agent to understand its operation.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The most important information (purpose and when-not-to-use) is front-loaded.

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 number of parameters (6) and lack of output schema, the description provides enough context for basic usage. It covers parameter roles and usage constraints. Could benefit from mentioning the return type or structure, but not essential.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining that document_id limits statute search). However, the schema already clearly describes each parameter.

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 comprehensive citations for a legal question by searching statutes, case law, and preparatory works simultaneously. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_provision and get_preparatory_works, which are for single known statutes.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including an alternative: 'Do NOT use for a single known statute — use get_provision + get_preparatory_works instead.' Also notes that coverage depends on dataset tier and advises calling 'about' to check.

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