cgm_expc_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about response formats (JSON/XML/HTML), the OC override, and the return value ('full interpretation text or error'), but does not explain behaviors like error conditions, rate limits, or the meaning of OC. This is modest value beyond annotations but not 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 description is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a clean Arg/Returns structure. It is compact with no redundant sentences; every line serves a purpose, including the helpful reference to cgm_expc_search for ministry values.

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 simple fetch tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the core contract: what it does, what the inputs mean, and what it returns. It does not explain OC or detailed error conditions, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the presence of read-only annotations.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for each parameter: ministry references sibling search values, id is the serial number, type specifies response format with default, and ctx is injected automatically. The oc parameter remains vague ('Optional OC override'), but overall the description compensates well for the schema gap.

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 the tool retrieves full text of ministry interpretations, using a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve ministry interpretation full text'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools (e.g., cgm_expc_search) by emphasizing 'full text' and requiring an id, making the fetch operation unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied through the parameters (ministry + id) and the phrase 'full text', suggesting this is used to fetch details after a search. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of typical workflow steps (e.g., 'first search with cgm_expc_search').

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