Retrieve explicit canonical cross-references from official legal sources, trace citations up to two levels deep, and report unresolved links to support legal verification.
Retrieve explicit canonical cross-references, at most 12 documents and depth 2. Report unresolved links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of_date | Yes | ||
| source_ref | Yes | ||
| depth_limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond this: the hard limits on result count and depth (12 documents, depth 2) and the promise that unresolved links will be reported. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then the constraints, then the additional reporting behavior. Every part contributes meaning.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what the agent can expect. It does mention that unresolved links are reported, but it does not clarify the return format, how source_ref and as_of_date interact, or the exact meaning of 'depth' relative to the depth_limit parameter (the schema default is 1, while the description says depth 2 is the maximum). This leaves noticeable gaps for a tool with three parameters.
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 undocumented parameters. It only hints at the depth_limit parameter by stating 'depth 2' is a maximum, but it does not explain the required parameters source_ref and as_of_date at all, leaving the agent without enough semantic grounding for the most important inputs.
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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('explicit canonical cross-references'), adding concrete constraints ('at most 12 documents and depth 2') and a secondary behavior ('Report unresolved links'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like search, fetch, and get_legal_version, none of which target cross-reference resolution.
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 when to use the tool: when canonical cross-references need to be resolved. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative (e.g., search vs. fetch) would be more appropriate for a given scenario, leaving selection somewhat to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.