chain_dispute_prep

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by revealing that the tool chains multiple sub-searches and aggregates results per category, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or detailed response structure, but the added behavioral detail is meaningful.

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 well-organized and concise, including a purpose summary, chain breakdown, parameter list, return summary, and examples. Every section contributes value without redundancy.

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 chained tool with no output schema, the description provides essential information: return categories and invocation examples. It does not specify the exact response structure (e.g., how results are grouped), but the mention of 'results per category' offers some hint. Overall, it is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining all four parameters: query with examples, display as per-category count, oc as an optional override, and type as response format. The explanations for oc and type are slightly vague, preventing a higher score.

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: to prepare for a legal dispute by gathering all decision-type case law. It explicitly enumerates the chained sources (precedent search, admin appeals, constitutional decisions, special tribunal), which distinguishes it from single-source sibling tools.

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 a clear context for use: when preparing for a legal dispute and needing all decision-type legal sources in one call. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for single-source needs, but the composite nature is evident.

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