prepare_pleading_dossier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses output-quality behavior ('citation-grounded', 'without hallucinations or dashes'), implying a grounding/non-fabricating operation. However it says nothing about access requirements, whether it mutates any state, or performance characteristics.

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 a clear verb-object framing and no padding. The trailing 'or dashes' clause is slightly idiosyncratic but the sentence remains efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly needed, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description should at least explain the 'norms' structure. For a two-required-param tool it leaves key invocation details unaddressed.

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% with two required parameters, one of which ('norms') is a nested array-of-arrays of strings whose intended format is opaque. The description offers no clarification of either 'norms' or 'query', leaving the agent to guess how to construct the crucial 'norms' input.

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 (Prepare) and resource (a citation-grounded legal context dossier) with the intended downstream use case (drafting pleadings/briefs). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_subsumption_blueprint or search_precedents, but the resource and purpose are clear enough to distinguish it.

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 phrase 'for drafting court pleadings or legal briefs' implies the context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (search_precedents, get_norm) it should be combined with or preferred over.

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