get_executive_order_full_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool fetches the complete full text and enumerates the types of content it contains (policy language, directives, legal citations, implementation details), giving a clear picture of the returned data. It does not mention output format or potential limitations, but for a straightforward fetch-by-ID tool this is sufficient behavior disclosure.

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 description is two sentences with the action verb and resource in the first sentence, immediately front-loaded. The second sentence justifies the tool's value by describing what the full text contains, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns by describing the full text's components. It doesn't explain error behavior for nonexistent EO numbers, but that is a minor gap for such a simple request; the description is complete for practical agent use.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter eo_number, including an example. The description only repeats 'by its EO number' without adding syntax, formatting, or edge-case information, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource (complete full text of a specific executive order) and the lookup key (EO number). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that the full text contains details 'not available in abstracts or titles', which sets it apart from get_executive_order or search tools.

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 description implies when to use this tool by highlighting the added value over abstracts/titles—when the agent needs detailed policy language, legal citations, and implementation details. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the contrast with abstracts/titles gives clear context for selection.

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