Read a code article

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, so the description is free to add the behavior that matters: prefix-tolerant matching, the match_status disclosure, the Lp. vs L. New Caledonia distinction, duplicate numbers across prefixes, and the critical caveat that not_found is never proof no legal basis exists.

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?

Front-loads the return value and the two input paths before the edge cases, which is well ordered. It is dense and the New Caledonian loi du pays digression is lengthy, but each sentence carries real disambiguation value.

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 an output schema present, return values need no elaboration, and the description covers matching semantics, defaults and the failure-mode caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains that article_number matching is prefix-tolerant with concrete variants, and that omitting code_slug broadens the search to all codes, which the schema only states tersely.

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 ('Returns one code article') and enumerates what comes back (text, amendment history, place in the code, previous/next articles, official URL). This clearly separates it from search, outline and section-reading siblings.

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?

Explains the two entry paths (article_slug from search results or outlines, or article_number) and that omitting code_slug searches every code. It gives a clear usage context but does not explicitly say when to prefer read_code_section or search instead.

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