get_provision

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context (returns full text, metadata, source URL; fallback to all provisions with size warning). However, it directs historical queries to get_provision_at_date while the schema includes an as_of_date parameter for historical versions, creating a confusing inconsistency about the tool's actual behavior.

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 yet informative, starting with the main purpose, then return information, warnings, examples, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Without an output schema, the description states the return format (full text, metadata, source URL) and covers key use cases. It warns about large responses and provides examples. The as_of_date discrepancy is a minor gap, but overall it gives enough context for safe and correct invocation.

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 high. The description adds value with concrete examples (document_id='BWBR0005289', book='6', article='162') that clarify parameter combinations beyond the schema descriptions. It does not need to repeat parameter details.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve a specific provision (article) from a Dutch statute by BWB-ID.' It specifies the verb, resource, and identification method, and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_legislation and get_provision_at_date.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use search_legislation if you don't know the BWB-ID' and 'Use get_provision_at_date if you need a historical version.' It also warns about the behavior when no article is specified, covering when to use with care.

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