get_organization_krs_chapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the Premium+ plan requirement, which is a meaningful access behavior, but it does not mention other behaviors such as historical entry_number handling, error conditions, or what the returned chapter data includes beyond what the schema states.

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 extremely compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the essential plan restriction. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

The core invocation is sufficiently defined, and the output schema covers return-value expectations. However, the lack of any relationship to sibling KRS tools leaves an agent uncertain about how this chapter-specific fetch fits with the full-extract and entry-list operations, which is a real gap given those siblings exist.

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?

The input schema already documents the 'chapter' and 'entry_number' parameters in detail, covering about 67% of properties. The description adds the Premium+ condition but does not clarify the 'id' parameter beyond implying it refers to an organization, so it provides only modest value beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one KRS chapter') and enumerates the available chapters, making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_organization_krs_extract, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_organization_krs_extract or list_organization_krs_entries. The Premium+ note is a restriction, not a usage strategy.

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