get_provision

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that omitting optional parameters returns all provisions, supports historical dates, and shows different formats for flat vs. chaptered statutes. This adds significant behavioral context despite some missing details on error handling.

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, well-structured with front-loaded purpose and examples. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or empty text.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior for all parameter combinations. It covers what the tool returns (provision text) and how to get all provisions. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing examples and clarifying the relationship between chapter/section and provision_ref, going beyond the schema parameter descriptions.

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 it retrieves a specific provision from a Danish statute. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific provision from a Danish statute'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_legislation and build_legal_stance.

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 provides clear examples of how to use different parameter combinations (chapter+section vs provision_ref) and mentions when to omit them. While it doesn't explicitly exclude sibling tools, the usage context for retrieving a specific provision is well defined.

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