get_preparatory_works

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavioral expectations: what the tool returns and its boundary (legislative intent, not current law). It does not mention failure modes or output format, but for a simple read-oriented lookup this is reasonably transparent.

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 well organized and front-loads the core purpose before the not-to-use guidance. It is slightly repetitive, with both 'essential for understanding legislative intent' and the final sentence making the same point, but every sentence otherwise earns its place.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the essential context: what the tool returns, why it is useful, and how it differs from the nearest sibling. Minor missing details like result formatting or error behavior do not undermine 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%, and the document_id parameter already includes explicit examples of accepted formats. The description adds only the contextual note that the statute is Finnish, so it provides no significant additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 specific operation (get preparatory works) and the resource (Finnish statute), and enumerates the concrete result types: government proposals, committee reports, and related documents with summaries. It also differentiates this tool from get_provision, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (understanding legislative intent) and when not to use it (when the statute text itself is needed), naming the alternative tool get_provision. This is clear, actionable routing guidance.

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