get_legislation_provisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read/fetch operation returning full text, but it does not explain sourceMode behavior, error handling, or output shape. For a simple read tool this is minimally adequate, but clear gaps remain.

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 routing advice is front-loaded, followed by the core operation and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is mostly sufficient but leaves sourceMode semantics unexplained. An agent can call it correctly for documentIds but may not understand the sourceMode enum.

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. It explains documentIds through prose and an example document ID, but sourceMode is only shown as 'mock' in the example; the enum values mock/live/snapshot and their effects are not explained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches full text of legislation provisions by document IDs.' It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling prepare_doctor_legal_information_pack by positioning it as the granular, document-ID-isolated alternative.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: prefer prepare_doctor_legal_information_pack for end-to-end questions, and use this only when legislation provisions are needed by document ID in isolation. This names both the preferred alternative and the condition for using this tool.

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