Get exact judgment paragraphs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific behavior 'Missing numbers return PARAGRAPH_NOT_FOUND', which is valuable beyond annotations. It does not mention other behavioral aspects, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The missing-number behavior is a valuable addition in the second sentence. Highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 a complex input schema (anyOf array/range, required 'case' and 'paragraphs') and zero schema documentation, the description fails to guide the agent on how to format the 'paragraphs' argument or what 'case' and 'language' refer to. Although an output schema exists, the input side is underexplained for the tool's complexity.

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 explain parameters. It hints at 'source-numbered paragraphs' and missing-number behavior, which relates to the 'paragraphs' parameter, but it does not explain 'case' or 'language' at all. The complex structure of 'paragraphs' (array or range) is not addressed. Compensation is incomplete.

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 clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('source-numbered paragraphs'), and adds the scope constraint 'only requested'. It is distinct from siblings like get_recitals, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is unambiguous, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_recitals or get_article. The phrase 'only requested' implies a selective use case, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion. The agent must infer the usage scenario.

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