lido_related

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and bounded (limit 100/250), states the data source (KOOP's live LiDO service), and clarifies the output is structure, not full text. It does not mention latency or failure modes, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: scope, data source, use case, and behavioral constraints. No filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains return content well: citing/cited rulings, statute articles, publications, and typed link labels. It also distinguishes from text retrieval. Minor gaps like pagination or error handling are inferable from the bounded limit.

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 new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, but it does reinforce the limit behavior and link type examples, which are already present in 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the LiDO citation graph around a Dutch ECLI'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying graph relationships and explicitly referencing get_uitspraak for text retrieval.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to position a ruling (is it a landmark? what does it cite?)'. It also names the alternative get_uitspraak for full text, making the boundary clear.

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