track_legal_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are saved to a result_set_id and mentions using filter_results for further narrowing, which is helpful. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens with no results, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, starting with a clear purpose sentence followed by a detail sentence and a usage hint. The examples are well-formatted and add necessary context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, presence of output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the core functionality, how results are stored, and how to proceed with filtering. Examples cover various scenarios, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by including examples that demonstrate parameter combinations (e.g., using keywords with date ranges), which aids understanding beyond the schema.

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: tracking legal changes and new publications within a date range. It provides specific details about returning legal acts published or changed in the range, and distinguishes itself from siblings like filter_results by explaining the workflow.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (to track legal changes) and provides examples covering common use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like search_legal_acts, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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