dms_legal_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a query (read operation), naming the fields returned. However, it does not disclose whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited beyond the limit parameter, nor any rate limits or access restrictions. This is adequate but leaves 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 that front-loads the tool's purpose and resource, then lists key fields. Every part is useful, but it could be slightly more concise by removing the parenthetical '80 instruments' if not critical.

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 no output schema and 4 simple string/number parameters, the description is largely complete for a query tool. It names the source and return fields. It could mention that the tool returns a list of instruments, but the output format is not described. Still, the simplicity of the tool keeps gaps small.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists example values for 'domain' and 'instrument_type', which adds some semantic context beyond the schema's generic descriptions. However, it doesn't explain how these filters interact (AND/OR) or provide format guidance for 'query'.

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 verb 'Query', the specific resource 'AKIJ Bangladesh Legal Universe (80 instruments) from the Legal Compliance Master Workbook', and lists the key fields returned (laws, domains, instrument type, regulator, official source URL). It explicitly names the sibling tools 'dms_search' and 'dms_legal_kpi', which helps differentiate this tool as a query-oriented legal register.

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 states it queries a specific legal universe, which implies use when you need legal instrument data from that source. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the siblings, though the name 'legal_register' and the field list suggest a filtered search tool distinct from general 'dms_search'.

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