legal_get_facts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose a concrete prerequisite ('Requires cvrt-legal 0.7.0+') plus a non-obvious behavior: it also reports which required fields are missing. It does not mention auth/permission needs, but the version gate and missing-field reporting are real added context.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action and returned content front-loaded and the version prerequisite placed at the end. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully describes what comes back (Impressum field values plus missing-required indicators). Combined with the version prerequisite and 100% param coverage, an agent has enough to call this tool correctly, though permissions/error behavior remain unstated.

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?

Only one parameter (site) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it ('Site id (see list_sites)'). The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, making the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Impressum fields: company, address, register, VAT id) and clarifies downstream use (generator fills both Impressum and Datenschutz). That distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling writers legal_put_facts and legal_update_settings.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the fact that it returns field values; there is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to alternatives such as legal_put_facts for writing or legal_get_generator for generator config. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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