legal_matter_intake

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the main steps (classification, conflicts check, drafting, fee proposal) but omits potential side effects, authorization needs, or failure modes. Some transparency but incomplete.

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?

Two short paragraphs with front-loaded main sentence and a clear bullet-like args list. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs and high-level behavior adequately. More detail on the workflow's side effects could improve completeness, but it is sufficient.

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 0%, so description adds value by providing brief explanations for each parameter (message, client_message, attachments, jurisdiction), including an example for jurisdiction. Descriptions are terse but add meaning beyond 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 clearly states it runs a new-matter intake and lists specific steps (classifies matter type, conflicts-checks, drafts engagement letter scope, proposes fee structure). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the intake process.

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 implies when to use ('from a client message or file') but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.

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