legalpass_verdict

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions that the tool checks against an 'issue-spotter guardrail' and returns a 'legally reviewed disclaimer banner', but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or safety implications (e.g., whether it modifies data). The verb 'lint' suggests non-destructive analysis, but this is not stated explicitly.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action ('lint') and goal. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the guardrail check from the return value for clarity.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for basic use. It explains the input (verdict text) and output (disclaimer banner), but does not elaborate on what the guardrail does or the format of the banner. It is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds context like 'LegalPass-style' and 'legally reviewed', but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides. As per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: linting LegalPass-style verdict text against a guardrail and returning a disclaimer banner. It uses specific verbs ('lint', 'return') and identifies the resource ('verdict text', 'disclaimer banner'). While it distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'LegalPass-style', it could be more explicit about how it differs from 'legalpass_run'.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'legalpass_run'. It does not provide any context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or which scenarios are appropriate. Implied usage is only for verdict text, but no explicit comparison to siblings is given.

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