eqanun_madde

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful trait — the text is 'verbatim' and 'in-force', implying repealed or historical versions are unavailable — but says nothing about failure modes for invalid framework_id/madde or output shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its key constraint. The bilingual Azerbaijani restatement duplicates the English content rather than adding information, which is mild redundancy but not bloat.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin for a 2-parameter required-input tool. It omits where framework_id comes from and what the returned text includes, leaving the agent to guess at invocation mechanics.

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 the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies 'madde' as the article identifier, but gives no explanation of 'framework_id' (presumably the act's ID, perhaps from eqanun_akt), leaving half the parameter semantics undocumented.

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: returns the verbatim, currently in-force text of a single article (Maddə) of an act. This implicitly separates it from eqanun_akt (whole act) and eqanun_bend (sub-article clause), though those siblings are never named outright.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the lookup to use once a framework and article number are already known, versus eqanun_axtar for discovery.

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