lu_dp_get_guideline

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose what the returned document contains, whether it's a full text or summary, whether any authentication is needed, or any rate-limit/format considerations. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap in behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and devoid of filler. Every word adds information — the actor verb, the resource type, the key, and the scoping detail. Zero waste.

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 single-param, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description is mostly adequate. The ID provenance hint, the clear verb, and the resource identification cover the essentials. However, without any annotations, additional context about what form the returned guidance takes (full text vs metadata) would materially improve completeness for agent decision-making.

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% with a single well-described parameter. The description adds the sourcing hint that the ID comes from search_guidelines results, which enriches the schema's basic 'Guideline database ID' text by telling the agent where the ID originates. The 0-param-fix baseline is 4, and the description does provide useful provenance context for the ID value.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Get' a 'CNPD guidance document') and specifies the retrieval key ('by its database ID'). It's not identical to siblings — search_guidelines obviously lists rather than fetches a single item — but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_decision or other retrieval tools beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage in the context of already having located a document's ID, and the parameter description mentions 'from lu_dp_search_guidelines results'. This creates an implicit workflow connection but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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