Get jurisdiction-specific contract requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return content but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has no side effects. For a query tool, this lack of explicit safety statement is a minor gap.

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 long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the types of information returned (legal requirements, key differences, etc.). It also provides practical examples for both parameters. Some might wish for more precise return format, but it is largely complete for a query tool.

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% with both parameters clearly defined. The description reinforces the parameters with examples (e.g., 'contractor-agreement', 'california'), but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves statute-cited legal requirements, key differences, common pitfalls, terminology, and FAQs for a contract type in a specific jurisdiction. It uses a specific verb ('get' implied) and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like analyze_contract and check_non_compete_enforceability.

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 usage format (contract slug + jurisdiction slug) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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