prepare_doctor_legal_information_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that live mode queries official sources by name (mevzuat.gov.tr, Yargitay, Danistay), that mock returns "clearly-marked fixture data for testing only," and that a packId is returned. It omits latency, failure behavior, and whether the external queries incur cost or rate limits.

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 critical routing cue ("PRIMARY ENTRY POINT") is front-loaded and the sentence order follows the agent's decision flow. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every clause adds real information, and the worked example aids invocation.

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 multi-source orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the returned pack contents and the packId. However, three undocumented parameters and no note on behavior when live sources fail leave gaps an agent would need filled.

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 and only partly does. It explains sourceMode well (live/mock) and the question parameter via example, but assessmentTone, precedentSources, and includeDiagnostics are never mentioned — three of five parameters left fully undocumented.

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 ("Prepares a complete source-grounded legal information pack") and enumerates exactly what the pack contains: classification, verbatim legislation, verified high-court precedents, missing information, and lawyer review points. It also declares itself the "PRIMARY ENTRY POINT" that returns a packId, cleanly distinguishing it from the drill-down siblings.

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 ("use this tool first for any physician legal question") and explains the sourceMode branch — live by default, mock for testing only. It does not name the sibling tools or state when to skip it in favor of them, leaving that to inference, so it falls short of a 5.

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