get_policy_fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that the tool fetches and normalizes content, indicating a read operation. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, permissions needed, or rate limits. The optimization note adds some context but not full transparency.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the action and result. It includes essential detail (the output fields) and a relevant optimization note. No redundant words; it is efficiently front-loaded.

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 complexity of fetching and parsing web pages, the description provides moderate completeness. It explains the output format but omits error handling, timeouts, or limitations (e.g., only works on gov.cn). With no output schema, more detail on potential failures would improve completeness.

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 schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by specifying the output structure (title, date, doc_no, body, issuer), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand what the tool returns, beyond what the input schema provides.

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 what the tool does: fetch policy full text and normalize into structured JSON with specific fields (title, date, doc_no, body, issuer). It also specifies the optimization for gov.cn pages, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_latest_policies that lists policies rather than fetching full text.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that it is for fetching full text of a specific policy, and the sibling is for listing, but it lacks explicit when-not or alternative usage notes.

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