lt_get_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the edition-selection fallback and the fact that a 'stale' flag plus a text_source field signal which edition was returned. However, output-shape details are left to the output schema, so the added context is moderate rather than rich.

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 core statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences explain the edition priority and the text_source signal. Slightly dense with internal terminology ('suvestine redakcija', 'stale') but each clause carries decision-relevant 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to explain retrieval semantics — which it does via the explicit edition-priority chain and the text_source indicator. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only the sibling-selection guidance is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter whose schema description already carries 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that lookup is by TAR code and adds no format guidance beyond the schema's example value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the full Lithuanian text of an act') plus the identifier type (TAR code) and the temporal scope ('version in force today'). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like lt_get_edition_text or lt_get_provision by promising the whole act's current text, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 fallback chain (consolidated in force today → newest stale consolidated edition → original text) tells the agent exactly what it will get in each situation, which is strong decision-support. It stops short of saying when to prefer a sibling such as lt_get_edition_text for a historical version.

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