get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a single article and that repeated calls are inappropriate for searching. However, it does not describe the return format, error behavior for invalid article numbers, or versioning behavior beyond the date parameter's schema description. The description provides moderate behavioral context but leaves room for more.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place. The first states the tool's purpose and the key precondition (exact article number), and the second provides critical usage prohibition and routing to the alternative. No fluff, perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple single-article retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: exact-number precondition, the search disincentive, and the alternative routing. The only gaps are the absence of any return-format or error-handling description, but for such a focused tool with a well-documented schema, this is a minor omission.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema itself. While the description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, it provides essential semantic context: that 'article' must be an exact number from a cross-reference, which clarifies the precision requirement. This adds value beyond the schema's generic description of article as just 'Article number'.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single article when the exact article number is known, using a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling tool get_law_text by explicitly stating what it is NOT for, which makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you already know the EXACT article number'), an explicit when-not-to-use instruction ('Do NOT call this tool repeatedly to search for provisions'), and names the alternative tool (get_law_text) with guidance on how to use it instead. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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