get_provision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It correctly implies read-only behavior by stating 'retrieve' and 'returns the provision text valid on that date.' However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a brief usage note, three examples, and an edge case (omitting both parameters). Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains input usage, examples, and optional parameters. It covers all scenarios (specific provision vs. all provisions, historical date) and is complete given the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between section and provision_ref (alternative identifiers), showing examples, and clarifying the as_of_date parameter. It does not repeat schema info verbatim.

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 'Retrieve a specific provision (grein) from an Icelandic statute.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('provision from statute'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_legislation or get_preparatory_works.

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 specifies two ways to identify a provision (section or provision_ref) and provides examples. It also explains that omitting both retrieves all provisions, giving clear usage context. Though it doesn't explicitly mention when-not-to-use, the guidance is complete for the tool's scope.

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