Get provision

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the version-selection rule tied to as_of, the recitals-only-in-OJ limitation and the found=false fallback, plus an applicability flag derived from the deadline table. This is well beyond what the annotations and schema convey.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause and keeps every subsequent sentence informational, with no filler. It is a dense, semicolon-chained paragraph though, and the parameter mechanics could be split from the return-value notes for easier scanning.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: the applicability field, the neighbouring-provisions list (including amendment-inserted items like paragraph 6a), and the found=false case. An agent knows both what it gets back and how to interpret it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the interaction between as_of and version (explicit version wins over as_of), the date that flips the default corpus, and the consequence of requesting a recital under the consolidated version. It adds real semantics on top of the schema text it partially echoes.

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: returns exactly one provision by id or citation, with all descendants, and gives concrete id/citation examples. The singular, identifier-driven retrieval is naturally distinct from aiact_search, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Offers useful in-tool guidance (when to pass version vs as_of, precedence rules, and the warning to inspect neighbouring provisions before concluding nothing more exists), but never says when to reach for this tool instead of aiact_search, aiact_verify_citation, or aiact_diff. Usage relative to alternatives must be inferred.

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