get_legal_policies

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but nothing is said about what legal policies are included, whether the call is safe/read-only, authentication needs, or return format. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 immediately states the action and object. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it adds only slightly more than the tool name itself.

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 existence of similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the difference between 'legal policies' and 'shop policies', nor does it explain what the returned data contains. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to ensure correct usage.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed.

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 'Fetch legal policies for the store' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('legal policies'). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tools 'get_shop_policies' or the singular 'get_legal_policy', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_shop_policies' or 'get_legal_policy'. The description provides no context about scope, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to guess.

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