classify_legal_intent

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly says the tool does not return specialists and that it returns 'matched categories with parent chains'. This provides concrete expectations beyond the basic purpose. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only classification tool, this is sufficient.

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 four sentences, each contributing meaningfully: primary purpose, differentiation, usage context, and output detail. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant repetition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains what is returned (matched categories with parent chains) and how to use it (cite specific service or broader practice area). It also covers when to use the tool. Minor gaps like limits or edge-case behavior are not addressed, but the tool is simple enough that this is reasonably 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%: both 'query' and 'locale' have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond rephrasing that the input is a 'free-text legal question'. Since the schema already documents parameters fully, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'classify' and the resource 'free-text legal question', with output 'matched practice areas'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by stating 'without returning specialists' and 'Lighter weight than find_legal_specialists'.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you want to understand the legal domain of a query before deciding next steps, or when you only need the practice area, not specialist recommendations.' It also implies when not to use (when specialist recommendations are needed) and names the alternative find_legal_specialists.

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