smart_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing by intent, but nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. This is insufficient for an AI agent.

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, which is concise, but it could be expanded to provide more value without becoming verbose. It is minimally acceptable.

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 4 parameters with no descriptions and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the output format (despite having an output schema), how the intent routing works, or special cases. The tool's complexity is not addressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. The parameter names (query, law_name, intent_type, article_number) are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description does not clarify their usage, default behavior, or relationships.

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 states it is an intelligent comprehensive query that routes to a retrieval channel based on intent, giving a general sense of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of retrieval or output, and does not differentiate from siblings like law_article_search or agent_query.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for specific searches (e.g., law_article_search, search_clause_vector), but the description provides no context for selection.

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