legal_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating that verify_citations 'flags fabricated or misdescribed authority' and that cite_check reports overruling status, which goes beyond simple annotations. It does not describe auth/rate-limit requirements, but that is not expected given the annotation coverage.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then efficiently enumerates all modes. While it is not as crisp as a two-sentence summary, it contains no redundant fluff and every clause adds specific information. The semicolon-linked structure makes it scannable.

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?

With no output schema and 16 parameters, the description does a good job of covering the tool's key behaviors and parameter groups across modes. It does not mention return formats or credential requirements, but it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases. Slight deduction for not addressing the API key parameters or output shape.

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 81%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by mapping modes to parameters (e.g., 'mode=cite_check: case citation'), but it does not explain undocumented parameters like govinfoApiKey, congressApiKey, or courtlistenerToken. It provides moderate value but largely relies on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource combination ('Verification and analysis over U.S. law') and then enumerates four distinct modes (verify_citations, cite_check, applicable_law, impact_map), each with a clear scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_law or get_law_text, which are for retrieval rather than analysis.

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 explicitly tells users when to use it ('run it on any AI-drafted legal text before relying on it') and explains each mode's purpose, providing clear context for selection. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the mode breakdown makes the intended use cases unambiguous.

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