legal-brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the source set (Légifrance, service-public.gouv.fr, ministères), the returned fields (titles, links, snippets), the 'not legal advice' caveat, and the payment model ($0.020 per call, x402/USDC). It does not state rate limits, result caps, or error behavior, but the safety/auth context is well covered for a read-only lookup 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the routing rule, then supporting detail. The em-dash-heavy packing and embedded pricing make it slightly dense, but every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and source set, and it covers exclusions and cost. Minor gaps remain around result count defaults and source filtering, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single required 'q' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a usage example (GET ?q=licenciement) but no syntax, encoding, or source-filter guidance beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource — 'French legal watch by keyword' over official sources — and enumerates the covered domains (labor law, contracts, regulations). It also names the sibling it is not for (company-profile), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use ONLY for French law research by keyword' and 'For a company's dossier use company-profile instead.' Both the when and the when-not, plus the named alternative, are present.

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