saij-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining what the tool returns (JSON structure with specific fields), the automatic prefix handling for fallo_id, and the nature of the data (legal principles with descriptors). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but provides solid behavioral context.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then what sumarios contain, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and return structure, making the output schema documentation of the return format sufficient without needing duplication in the description.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what fallo_id represents, provides an example format ('FA20000057'), and documents the automatic prefix handling behavior that isn't captured in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all legal summaries linked to a court decision'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on summaries rather than documents or search functionality. It explains what sumarios contain and their utility.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for understanding the key legal holdings of a case'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (saij_get_document, saij_search).

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