get_erskine_may_paragraph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a lookup returning 'the specific paragraph content', which implies a safe read, but says nothing about invalid/missing reference behavior, required permissions, or numbering scope (e.g. whether '4.5' is global or chapter-local).

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage cue, then return value. The Args/Returns block repeats information already implied by the first sentence (the reference parameter and the returned content), so there is minor redundancy, but no sentence is confusing or bloated.

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?

With a single required parameter and an output schema present, the definition needs only to establish what the tool retrieves and how to supply the reference; it does both. The remaining gap is hierarchical scoping of the reference, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the parameter ('reference') and supplies concrete format examples ('4.5', '12.3'). It does not clarify whether the reference is globally unique or scoped to a section/chapter, which is a meaningful ambiguity for this hierarchy.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up a specific paragraph by reference number') and adds keyword synonyms ('paragraph citation, specific rule'). It distinguishes by input shape from the search-type siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with get_erskine_may_section or get_erskine_may_chapter, which are the nearest alternatives in a paragraph/section/chapter/part hierarchy.

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?

Gives one positive condition ('Use when you have a paragraph reference like 4.5'), which is genuinely useful selection guidance. However, in a sibling set containing paragraph, section, chapter, part, and relative-section lookups, no when-not condition or named alternative is offered, so routing for ambiguous hierarchical references is left to inference.

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