get_subsumption_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only lookup and the enumeration characterizes the returned content, but there is no disclosure of permission requirements, lookup failure behavior when a law/section pair has no blueprint, or coverage limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The enumerated list of blueprint components is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the blueprint contains.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description's content list is a reasonable supplement. However, the undocumented parameter formats and absent usage guidance leave the definition only minimally sufficient for a legal-domain lookup tool.

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 never mentions the 'law' and 'section' parameters. The agent gets no format hints (e.g., 'BGB' vs 'German Civil Code', '§ 823' vs '823'), which is a real gap for a two-required-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and a specific resource (legal subsumption blueprints), then enumerates the components returned (Tatbestandsmerkmale, Beweislast, legal consequences). An agent can grasp what the tool yields without opening a schema, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_norm or search_precedents.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools (get_norm, search_precedents, get_decision). The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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