classify_medical_legal_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool classifies into legal dimensions and extracts search terms, which is useful output behavior, but it does not explain sourceMode (mock/live/snapshot), whether live mode makes external calls, or whether the operation has side effects.

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 front-loaded with the usage preference, then states purpose, then gives a compact example. Every sentence contributes, though the example is somewhat optional because the schema already defines the question field.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description does most of the contextual work. It adequately describes the classification output categories, but it omits any explanation of sourceMode behavior, which is important for an enum that includes live external execution.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys that 'question' is a physician question and gives an example, but it says nothing about the sourceMode parameter or its mock/live/snapshot enum, leaving one of two parameters entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it classifies a physician question into legal dimensions and extracts search terms. It also lists concrete output categories (patient_rights, professional_ethics, criminal, privacy_kvkk, civil_compensation) and explicitly distinguishes itself from prepare_doctor_legal_information_pack.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: prefer prepare_doctor_legal_information_pack for end-to-end questions and use this tool only when medical-legal classification is specifically needed in isolation. That is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure an agent needs.

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