legal_get_page

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the meaning of each returned flag and a hard dependency (cvrt-legal 0.4.2+), which the schema does not. However, it never explicitly states this is a safe read-only operation or describes permission requirements, leaving a gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its return shape, then semantics, then the version prerequisite. No wasted text, though the middle clause about reachability/compliance is somewhat dense.

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 two-param read tool with no output schema, the description sensibly explains the returned values itself. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has what it needs to call it correctly, even though auth/read-only behavior is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'site' and 'doc' carry descriptions and 'doc' has an enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 correct.

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+resource: getting the page a legal document is linked to, and enumerates the returned facts (linked, page_id, post status, ok). It is clearly distinguishable from the write-side sibling legal_link_page. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or prerequisites for choosing this over legal_link_page or legal_get_document. The note that a document only 'counts as reachable' and legal_status turns compliant when ok is true is semantic context, not routing or exclusion criteria.

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