lawink_ontology_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It discloses that only public data is exposed and client case info is blocked, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain the depth parameter's effect, rate limits, or output size constraints.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and key examples. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain the return format in more detail. It only says 'nodes+edges' but does not specify fields, pagination, or how the depth parameter affects results. Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, graph query), the description is incomplete.

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 the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing possible values for entity_type (precedent, statute, etc.) and that entity_id is a UUID. However, the depth parameter is only mentioned in the schema with a default of 1, and the description provides no explanation of its meaning.

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 queries a knowledge graph for legal entities (precedent, statute, etc.) and gives concrete examples of relationships. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a general graph query for any entity type, whereas siblings are more specific.

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 says it's used for reasoning and lists entity types, but it does not explicitly guide the agent when to use this tool versus the more specific siblings like lawink_precedent_relations. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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