legal_get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that the result includes ordered sections and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or broader return structure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action, scope, and notable output characteristic.

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 simple two-parameter getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It says what is retrieved and that sections are ordered, but it does not fully compensate for the lack of output schema or usage guidance.

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 both parameters, including the 'doc' enum and the 'site' reference to list_sites. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (legal document), and scopes it to exactly one document with its ordered sections. This clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling legal_list_documents without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention siblings like legal_list_documents or legal_get_page, so the agent has to infer that this is the right tool for retrieving a single legal document.

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