legal_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: DB cross-verification against the Ministry of Legislation, distinction between impossible and unconfirmed cases, change/repeal detection for case citations, temporal statute versioning, and mermaid graph output.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the tool's general purpose, then uses separators to define each mode with its required inputs. Every segment carries load-bearing information; there is no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what each mode produces: verified/existence classification, subsequent-case tracing with change/repeal detection, applicable law version with transitional provisions, and reverse citation graph with mermaid code. Together with the fully described 11-parameter schema, this gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful conditional mapping that the schema does not: which parameters are mandatory per mode, how the jo parameter accepts both natural-language phrases and 6-digit codes, and what each mode requires. This is real added value over the schema alone.

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 is explicit and specific: it identifies legal_analysis as an integrated verification/analysis tool with four concrete modes (verify_citations, cite_check, applicable_law, impact_map), each naming its target resource and output. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling search/get/retrieval tools.

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?

Each mode gives a scenario and the required parameters — e.g., verify_citations for existing legal citations in text, cite_check for case-viability, applicable_law for version-at-the-time analysis, and impact_map for reverse citation graphs. What prevents a 5 is that it never explicitly names the sibling alternatives or states when not to use them.

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