get_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds useful context about the output's completeness ('intégral et reconstruit') and included metadata (hierarchy, version, source), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core function and output scope; the second provides usage differentiation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, and key output characteristics. The presence of an output schema covers return value details. However, the lack of parameter semantics is a small completeness gap, preventing a perfect score.

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 for explaining act_code and article_reference. The description does not mention either parameter or provide any format or usage details. The phrase 'article OHADA exact' hints at precision but does not explain the parameters themselves, leaving a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retourne') and resource ('article OHADA exact') and clearly states the returned content (text, hierarchy, version, official source). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_articles, satisfying the sibling differentiation criterion.

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 says when to use this tool ('lorsqu'une seule disposition est matériellement nécessaire') and names the alternative for two to five provisions ('utiliser get_articles'). This provides clear and unambiguous usage guidance.

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