Statute dependency graph

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by explaining the two directional results ('dependencies' and 'dependentOn') and the corpus-grounded law-to-law edge source, but it does not disclose additional behaviors like default limits or response shape, which are partially handled by the schema and output schema.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then clarifies the two directions. No filler or redundant restatement of the title 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?

With a rich input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: directionality, edge type, and corpus grounding. It lacks explicit sibling routing guidance, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents statute, limit, and actNumber. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that the statute is the source node of the dependency graph.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Show which statutes a statute cites' and 'which statutes cite it back (dependentOn)'. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like related_laws and show_citations by specifying law-to-law, corpus-grounded dependency edges.

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 the tool is for statute-to-statute dependency graphs, but it never explicitly states when to choose it over similar siblings like related_laws, show_citations, or show_cross_references. Usage context is inferable but not directly stated.

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