mfa_metn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing beyond 'clean text'. It does not disclose whether the URL must be on mfa.gov.az, whether it fetches live pages, what happens with non-article URLs, or how large pages are handled.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but it is fully duplicated in two languages rather than using the second line to add information. The bilingual restatement consumes half the text without adding value.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition is minimal but the gist (returns cleaned page text) is inferable. Missing are the domain expectation for the URL and any notion of what the returned text looks like, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% for the single `url` parameter. The phrase 'of a mfa.gov.az page' faintly implies the URL must belong to that domain, which adds a little meaning, but no format, protocol, or validation expectations are given.

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 names a specific operation (cleaning/extracting text) and the exact resource scope (a mfa.gov.az page), so the agent knows the domain constraint. It is distinguishable from siblings like president_metn and the eqanun_* tools by the explicit mfa.gov.az target, though it never states the operation in terms of an action verb like 'fetch' or 'extract'.

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 the sibling search/extraction tools (president_metn, president_axtar, eqanun_metn-equivalents). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no statement of what conditions select this tool over a search variant.

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