get_dapa_legal_catalog_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain scope but does not describe return shape, not-found behavior, or input errors; still, no contradiction exists and the annotations carry most of the burden.

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 with no filler. It immediately names the domain and operation, and is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter lookup tool.

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 simple get-by-ID operation with rich annotations and a single required parameter, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement of what is returned or how to obtain the ID, but the level of complexity is low and the basic retrieval contract is clear.

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 only parameter, id, is documented in the schema as a non-empty string, and the description adds only that the lookup is 'by ID'—which the tool name already conveys. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining what kind of ID this is or how it relates to the catalog, but it does not.

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 action (retrieve), a precise resource (DAPA official statutes/administrative rules catalog item), and the lookup method (by ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools even though no sibling is named.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies this tool is for known catalog-item IDs rather than searching, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus sibling tools such as search_dapa_legal_catalog or get_dapa_legal_content. Usage context is present only by implication.

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