search_legal_terms

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 only discloses that it returns a list of terms with IDs; no side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits are mentioned. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 very short (two sentences) but not necessarily concise in a helpful way—it omits important details while being brief. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but could add parameter guidance without losing conciseness.

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 simple input (one string) and presence of an output schema (so return docs are covered), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not differentiate well from sibling search tools, which share similar structures.

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?

The parameter 'query' is entirely undocumented in both schema (0% coverage) and description. The description implies the query is a legal term to search, but adds no explicit details about format or constraints.

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 ('Search for legal terms') and the resource ('definitions'), and mentions the return type ('list of matching terms with IDs'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying 'legal terms' as opposed to laws, articles, or interpretations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description only states what it does, without indicating scenarios or exclusions.

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