legalize_law_meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'lightweight endpoint' hints at performance, but there is no disclosure of what metadata actually includes, error behavior, or access requirements. This is minimal and leaves significant gaps.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the key verb and resource, and 'lightweight endpoint' adds useful context without redundancy. Every word 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?

Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'metadata' includes, how the country/law_id parameters interact, or what the expected return shape is. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more contextual detail is needed.

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 mentions neither 'law_id' nor 'country'. With no parameter explanation in either the schema or the description, the agent gets no additional meaning beyond the raw type definitions.

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 gets metadata for a law using 'Get metadata for a law', which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like legalize_law_get (which likely retrieves full law details) by the 'lightweight' qualifier and the 'meta' suffix, though it does not explicitly name an 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus legalize_law_get, legalize_laws, or other siblings. The description simply states what it does without any contextual hints or exclusions.

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