Get one duty

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned content (deadline rows, summary, official source with reference and link, secondary sources fallback), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action ('One duty by id') and then lists the return payload. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 does the work of explaining what comes back, including the secondary-sources fallback case. Language and format behavior are left to the schema, which is reasonable, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 id, lang and response_format are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only extra id examples ('kw-cbk-incident', 'sa-sdaia-pdb') beyond the schema's 'qa-ncsa-nia', which is marginal added meaning.

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 ('One duty by id') plus the payload it returns, so an agent can tell it apart from najjab_list_obligations or najjab_deadlines. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 singular 'One duty by id' implies a single-record lookup as opposed to the list sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is left to inference from the name and description.

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