Read an act or publication from the JONC

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses important behavior: returned publication date and filing authority, text_status values, automatic PDF text extraction with pdf_text "auto", and why pdf_without_text_layer means retrying pages is futile. It also explains pdf_scope "whole_issue" as a potential PDF scope. This is unusually rich operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves efficiently through return values, text availability, and PDF scope. Despite covering complex behavior, every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 lack of an output schema and low schema description coverage, the description supplies the most important return and text-extraction context. It still leaves some parameter semantics implicit, notably id, max_chars, and full page-range behavior, so it is strong but not airtight.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It explains pdf_text behavior and maps item categories to the kind enum, but id, max_chars, and much of the page-range semantics remain undocumented outside the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: reads one item published in the JONC, with examples of item types. It clearly distinguishes item-level reading from broader JONC access, allowing an agent to identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 establishes that this tool reads one JONC item and explains PDF/text extraction behavior, but it never explicitly names when to choose it over siblings like leginova_get_jonc or the search tools. Usage is implied rather than contrasted against alternatives.

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