eqanun_bend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only that output is 'verbatim text', implying a read operation, but says nothing about permissions, what happens when the clause or framework_id is invalid, rate limits, or the response shape. For an un-annotated tool this is a significant gap.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first phrase. The English/Azerbaijani duplication adds redundancy for a monolingual agent but costs little space.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the framework_id/bend identifier scheme and error behavior. It leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call with confidence beyond the parameter names.

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 both parameters are undocumented in structured form. The description clarifies that 'bend' means a numbered clause, adding modest meaning to that parameter, but says nothing about 'framework_id' (apparently the parent act identifier), its expected values, or the expected format of the bend identifier (e.g., '5.2' vs '5').

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 gives a specific verb (retrieves verbatim text) and a precise resource (a numbered clause/bənd within Cabinet or Presidential acts), which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like eqanun_madde (article) and eqanun_akt (act). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the granularity distinction from terminology alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus eqanun_madde, eqanun_akt, or the *_axtar search siblings. The agent must guess whether 'bənd' retrieval is a lookup by ID or a broader query. No prerequisites or context conditions are stated.

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