get_legislation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the pagination model (40,000 chars/page) and the return shape including current_page/total_pages/total_chars. It omits auth requirements, error behavior, and an explicit read-only statement (only implied by 'Get'), leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 docstring-style layout is front-loaded with the purpose, then Args, then Returns, with no filler sentences. It is appropriately sized for a four-parameter tool, though the Returns section is terse and could be marginally clearer.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by describing the returned Dict per part and the pagination fields. Combined with full parameter coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only auth/error context is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all four parameters, including document_id, source, the three valid 'part' values, and page_number with its page size. A minor inconsistency exists where the description says source defaults to 'mevzuat' while the schema default is null.

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 and resource ('Get legislation content from the Mevzuat source') and enumerates the retrieval modes ('document', 'article_tree', 'gerekce'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like search_legislation, get_document, or mevzuat_madde_getir, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the 'part' modes: the agent can infer to use 'document' for full text, 'article_tree' for structure, and 'gerekce' for rationale. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling search/get tools, nor any stated prerequisites, so it remains implied rather than explicit.

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