consult

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the internal use of law_api for verification, the generation of IRAC opinions, forced disclaimer, and conditional auto-generation. It does not contradict any implicit assumptions, and provides behavioral context beyond basic read/write.

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 concise (2-3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy but could benefit from brief explanations for missing parameters. Nonetheless, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity (legal reasoning, IRAC output) and lack of output schema, the description provides a solid overview but omits details on parameters like case_id and out_root. The process and disclaimer are well-covered, but incomplete parameter info and no output schema limit completeness.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'question' (mandatory), 'facts' (optional context), and 'auto' (auto-generation flag), but completely ignores 'case_id' and 'out_root'. Two of five parameters have no explanation, leaving the agent uninformed about their purpose.

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: general legal consultation that transforms a question into an IRAC-structured opinion with law/precedent verification. It specifies the workflow (question → issues/law/precedent verification → IRAC opinion) and distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by adding reasoning and disclaimer.

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 implies when to use this tool (for legal consultation requiring a reasoned opinion), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like law_search or precedent_search. It hints at auto-generation but lacks explicit 'when to use' vs 'when to use alternative' guidance.

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