legal_render_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'without saving' explicitly declares the non-mutating behavior, and it discloses what comes back (normalized HTML, heading hierarchy, slug ids) even though there is no output schema. It omits richer traits like whether it depends on stored content, error behavior, or any auth/permission needs.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the practical reason to call it. No redundancy or filler.

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 read-only render/preview tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers action, side-effect status, and the shape of the returned content. What is missing is how the rendered output relates to the site/doc inputs and any failure or missing-document behavior.

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% with only 2 params (site, doc; doc's enum is fully enumerated), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no format or semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource ('Render a document to normalized HTML') and the key qualifier 'without saving', which separates it from write-side siblings like legal_put_document. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Useful to preview the heading hierarchy and slug ids before writing' gives a clear context of use and timing relative to the write path. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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