check_legalese

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior: it returns `issues` and `terms_of_art`, explains the kinds of detected legalese, emphasizes that legal terms must be kept verbatim, and discloses that the tool is heuristic with non-exhaustive lexicons. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured around the two return types. The examples (`käesolev` → `see`) and caveats (`not exhaustive`, `precision-first`) earn their space without any wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: purpose, outputs, safe usage, constraints, limitations, and unique terms-of-art behavior. The only minor gap is explicit comparison to sibling tools, but the behavior is described precisely enough that an agent can safely select and invoke it.

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 schema already fully describes the single `text` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds the useful 100,000-character input cap that is not encoded in the input schema, and the output definitions clarify what kinds of Estonian legal texts the parameter is expected to contain.

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 identifies the tool's job: analyze Estonian legal text and return both simplification suggestions and terms of art that must be preserved. It distinguishes the tool from other lingustic analyzers by its unique output structure, though it does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools like check_officialese or check_style.

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 says the `terms_of_art` list should be used as a 'do-not-touch list while you simplify,' which is concrete and actionable. It implies when to use the tool (when simplifying Estonian legal text) and warns about the 100,000-character input cap, but it does not explicitly list when not to use it or which alternative sibling tool to prefer.

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