expc_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the content returned (question summary, answer, reasoning), format constraints (JSON not supported), and that 'ctx' is injected automatically, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, parameters, return content, and provides examples. However, it lacks explicit error handling details or performance considerations, leaving minor gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all parameters: 'id' as required sequence number, 'lm' as optional name, 'oc' as optional override with default, 'type' as format with default and constraints, and 'ctx' as automatically injected. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'retrieves') and resources ('legal interpretation full text', 'complete text of a legal interpretation precedent'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'expc_search' by focusing on retrieving full text rather than searching.

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 usage through examples (retrieving by ID or with name) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'expc_search' or other service tools. It provides basic context but no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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