Get an article at a date

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context: the notion of a 'safe official snapshot' and the explicit statement that 'legal effect is not inferred'. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately adds the legal-effect caveat. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately brief while conveying essential information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the input semantics are inadequately defined. The description does not clarify what constitutes a 'safe official snapshot', how to identify a 'document', or the acceptable form of an 'article'. An agent would likely struggle to construct correct parameters, particularly with multiple sibling tools and no schema descriptions. The tool's complexity and legal context demand more explanatory detail.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain what 'document', 'article', or 'language' mean, nor their formats beyond the schema's pattern. The words 'article' and 'date' appear but without elaboration on how to construct valid values. This is a significant gap for an agent needing to fill parameters correctly.

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, specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('exact article from the latest safe official snapshot on or before a date'), and adds a key scoping nuance ('legal effect is not inferred'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_article or get_document_timeline, providing a strong operational definition.

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 a usage scenario (historical article retrieval) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like get_article or list_document_versions. It does not state when not to use this tool or reference specific sibling tools. The temporal constraint is clear, but exclusion guidance is absent, leaving the agent to infer when this is the correct choice.

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