ask_expert_ask_expert_post

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about a '4-Stage Legal Pipeline' but does not expand on specific behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or what 'deep analysis' entails. No contradiction with annotations.

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 overly verbose with detailed HTTP response schemas (200, 422) and example response objects. These are not essential for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage; the core description is only the first sentence. This hinders quick scanning.

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 complexity (deep legal analysis) and no output schema, the description does not explain what the successful response contains. It only shows a generic validation error schema. The agent is left without expectations for the return value, making the description 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (query, original_response, lang). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is for 'Expert mode — full 4-Stage Legal Pipeline with deep analysis and comprehensive statute verification.' This verb+resource combination (ask expert) distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ask' which likely offers a simpler analysis.

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 this is for deeper analysis ('expert mode') compared to a regular ask, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor are there any when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions mentioned.

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