list_legal_texts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'compact' nature and 'currently indexed' status, providing some additional context, but does not disclose details like response format or potential limitations beyond what annotations and output schema already provide.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Retourne le catalogue compact') followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and an output schema. The description fully covers the purpose and usage context, so nothing else is needed for the agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per evaluation guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none, and it doesn't introduce confusion.

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 returns the compact catalog of currently indexed legal texts ('Retourne le catalogue compact des textes actuellement indexés'). It also specifies its purpose for determining coverage or identifying act codes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_ohada_law and get_article.

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 direction on when to use the tool: 'À utiliser uniquement pour connaître la couverture ou identifier un code d'acte.' This clearly frames the usage scope. However, it does not name alternative tools directly, though sibling names are evident from the context.

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