get_legal_version

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context with 'Unknowns stay explicit,' signaling that missing or unresolved values will be surfaced rather than silently filled in. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 terse sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 three-parameter lookup with read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits any indication of the return format or failure behavior beyond 'unknowns stay explicit,' and it does not position the tool relative to its many siblings.

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 clarifies the critical text_ref parameter as the exact French code title, not a code ID. Article and as_of_date remain only nominally described, though their names and the date format provide some inherent meaning.

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 clearly states the tool finds a specific dated code article, with a verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search or compare_versions, though the 'dated' qualifier helps imply a historical-version lookup.

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 use for retrieving a French code article as of a specific date, and clarifies that text_ref must be an exact title rather than an ID. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as search or compare_versions.

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