get_methodology

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral nuance — 'Short mode retains all decisive controls' — which hints at output-mode behavior, though it is vague about what 'short mode' actually changes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is genuinely concise, though slightly under-specified given the ambiguity it leaves about modes and topics.

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 retrieval tool with two optional defaults, the description conveys the gist, but with no output schema it leaves return-value behavior unexplained, and it never enumerates the available topics or output modes. Adequate minimum, with notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It references 'topic' through 'a listed topic' and 'short mode' for output_mode, but the mapping is implicit and incomplete: it does not explain what 'note' (the default) means, what other output modes exist, or what topics are available. The compensation is partial at best.

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 names a clear verb ('read') and resource ('canonical legal methodology'), making the core purpose understandable. The 'canonical' qualifier and the topic option help an agent distinguish it from the searching siblings, though it does not explicitly separate itself from get_legal_version or fetch.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_legal_version, fetch, or search. 'Or a listed topic' implies some topic list exists, but the description never says which tool handles version comparisons or searches, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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