legalize_list_reforms

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context by specifying 'reform history (commits)' and 'legislative timeline,' but does not elaborate on ordering, pagination, or potential nuances beyond the schema.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No redundant or unnecessary words; every part contributes to 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is fairly complete. It could hint at the return structure (e.g., 'reform history includes dates and changes'), but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'ISO-3166 alpha-2 code', 'filename stem'). The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 'List the reform history (commits) of a law - the legislative timeline,' which specifies the verb (list) and resource (reform history of a law). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like legalize_get_law (likely gets current law) and legalize_search_laws (search).

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 usage for viewing legislative timeline, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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