get_notice_full

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the requirement for a separate avp-read-eforms-api subscription and HILMA_READ_API_KEY, which is valuable. It also specifies the output format (eForms XML). It does not mention side effects, error handling, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but these are reasonably inferred from a 'get' operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, requirement, and registration URL. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and is concise without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return format (eForms XML), contents (contacts, links), and authentication requirements. It does not exhaustively list every field or error scenario, but the tool's simplicity and sibling context (summary vs full) make it sufficient.

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 input schema provides full coverage for the single parameter notice_id, including a description. The tool description does not add further parameter details, but none are necessary given the 100% schema coverage. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool retrieves a notice's full details in eForms XML format, including specific contact fields (BT-502, BT-503, BT-506) and portal links. This distinguishes it from sibling get_notice_summary, which likely provides a summary. The verb 'Hae' (get) and the resource 'ilmoituksen' (notice) are explicit.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when full eForms XML data is desired, and it notes a critical prerequisite (separate subscription and API key). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context strongly implies the need for full versus summary data.

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