legal_status

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 discloses domain rules (Impressum/Datenschutz always required, AGB/Widerruf conditional on WooCommerce) and a derived 'compliant' flag, which is useful. However it is silent on read-only nature, permissions, or caching/refresh behavior for a status-read 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the result shape and followed by the domain rule. No filler, though the business-rule clause could be argued to belong in documentation rather than the tool description.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, annotation-free read tool, the description covers its purpose, return contents, and key domain rules. It lacks only optional behavioral details (read-only guarantee, permission scope) to be fully complete.

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% and the single 'site' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a pointer to list_sites. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (legal document status for a site) and lists exactly what it returns: which documents are required, filled, published, plus a compliant flag. Distinguishes from siblings like legal_get_document or legal_list_documents, which deal with content rather than status.

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 this is a status/overview check via the document state list, but it names no alternatives and gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance. The condition 'AGB and Widerruf become required when WooCommerce is active' hints at context but is not an invocation guideline.

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