admrul_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description consistently describes a retrieval operation. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the response includes content, addenda, and annexes, and that errors may occur, which goes beyond the annotation-only information.

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 well-structured with a concise summary, an explicit Args list, Returns note, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the bilingual heading is efficient. No redundancy or filler.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameter semantics, return content (full text with annexes), error behavior, and usage examples. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: id (required if lid/lm not provided), lid (alternative), lm (exact match), oc (override), and type (format with default). This gives the agent complete understanding of all five parameters.

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 'Retrieve administrative rule full text' with a specific verb and resource, and further specifies that it includes rule content, addenda, and annexes. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like admrul_search.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve full administrative rule text) and explains the alternative parameter selection via id, lid, or lm. It includes concrete examples but does not explicitly contrast with search tools or state when not to use it.

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