query_legal_api

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that content is not preloaded into MCP and that retrieval happens on demand. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail caching, rate limits, or response behavior.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes only the most important distinguishing behavior. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 8 parameters, a large apiId enum, and no output schema, yet the description is very short. It does not clarify which parameters apply to which apiId variants, what the response looks like, or how pagination works. For such a flexible and potentially complex tool, the description is not sufficiently complete.

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?

With 8 parameters and only 38% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains the provenance of apiId and says nothing about page, limit, query, documentId, or how they interact with different apiId values. This leaves a significant parameter understanding gap.

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 a specific action (on-demand retrieval of official lists and full texts) and a specific resource (content identified by the apiId from list_legal_apis). It also distinguishes itself from list_legal_apis by noting that it does not preload content into MCP, which helps separate the listing and querying responsibilities.

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 gives clear context: use this tool with an apiId obtained from list_legal_apis for on-demand retrieval. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the reference to list_legal_apis provides a practical usage path. This is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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