legal_resolver

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by noting that it runs multiple sub-queries (via 'display: Results per sub-query') and covers specific categories of legal sources, adding value beyond the annotations.

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-structured with a summary, detailed explanation, parameter list, returns, and examples. It is somewhat longer than necessary but every section adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return type, and usage examples. It does not explain the 'oc' parameter or the exact structure of the returned analysis, leaving some gaps, but overall it is reasonably complete given the annotations.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains each parameter: situation (plain language), display (results per sub-query), type (response format). The 'oc' parameter is only described as 'Optional OC override', which is vague and not fully clarified, preventing a 5.

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 function: 'Find all applicable laws, precedents, and interpretations for a situation' and explicitly mentions searching across multiple legal databases (law articles, court precedents, legal interpretations, citation networks). This differentiates it from sibling tools like law_search or prec_search, which likely target single databases.

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 usage context: it accepts a plain language situation and performs a comprehensive multi-database search in one call. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, though the sibling list provides implicit context.

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