LAWMADI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context about the '4-Stage Legal Pipeline' and 'comprehensive statute verification,' indicating depth of analysis. However, it does not disclose performance characteristics (e.g., latency of deep analysis), rate limits, or what the 4 stages entail. 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 first two sentences are concise and front-loaded with value. However, the description is significantly polluted with auto-generated HTTP response documentation (status codes 200/422, empty JSON schemas, and validation error examples) that consumes most of the text but provides zero value for tool selection or invocation.

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 100% schema coverage and presence of annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, it misses opportunities to explain the relationship between 'query' and 'original_response' (chaining workflow) or to describe what successful output looks like (the 200 response schema is documented as empty '{}').

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters including constraints (max 2000 chars) and defaults. The description text itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 the tool performs 'Expert mode' with a 'full 4-Stage Legal Pipeline' and 'deep analysis,' which clearly identifies the verb (analyze/ask) and resource (legal questions/statutes). It implies distinction from the sibling 'ask_ask_post' through the 'Expert mode' label and 'deep analysis' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to select this tool versus the sibling 'ask_ask_post' or 'ask_stream_ask_stream_post'. While 'Expert mode' implies depth, there are no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' criteria, nor does it explain the workflow for the optional 'original_response' parameter (i.e., that this tool can refine previous answers).

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