get_taxlaw_basic_ruling_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, or rate limits, though it mentions the dependency on a sibling tool.

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 a single concise sentence with two clauses: the resource and the usage direction. No unnecessary words, effectively front-loaded.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the key parameter but lacks details on return values, error cases, and the effect of the 'full' boolean.

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 descriptions cover 60% of parameters, but the description adds value by explaining that lawId originates from list results, which is not in the schema. Other parameter descriptions are present in the schema, so baseline is met and improved.

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 it retrieves basic ruling text from the National Tax Laws Information System and specifies the required lawId from a sibling tool, distinguishing it from other get_ and search_ tools.

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 instructs to use the lawId from list_taxlaw_basic_ruling_laws results, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not state when not to use or list alternatives, missing explicit exclusions.

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