get_statutory_instrument

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires authentication, what happens on a bad ID, or any rate limits. Only the return contents are mentioned, which is the one thing the output schema already covers.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, but the return contents ('laying info, procedure, status') are stated twice — once in the header and again under Returns — which is redundant given an output schema exists.

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-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the sole parameter, and return scope. However, with zero annotations and no explicit read-only statement, the behavioral profile is left to inference from the verb 'Get'.

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. It does explain that instrument_id is an alphanumeric string sourced from search results, adding format and provenance meaning beyond the bare 'Instrument Id' schema title, but gives no example or ID-shape detail.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get full details of a specific Statutory Instrument') and identifies the domain (statutory instrument, secondary legislation, regulations). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_statutory_instruments by requiring a specific ID, but it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parameter note 'alphanumeric string from search results' suggests this tool is called after a search, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative for browsing SIs.

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