get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It only states the action is retrieval, implying read-only, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description is too sparse on behavioral details.

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 a single concise sentence with no waste. However, it is very brief and could be structured to mention optional parameters like paragraph. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., full article text, metadata). It does not. It also lacks information on error cases or behavior when the article is not found. For a retrieval tool with sibling tools, this is incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the note about requiring either lawId or lawNum, which is also in the schema. Thus, the description adds minimal extra meaning, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'specific article from e-Gov Law Search', and the method 'by law ID or law number'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_law (whole law) and search_laws (searching).

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It implies scenarios where a specific article is needed but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or give when-not-to-use context.

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