get_paragraph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the original text in HTML/plain text and related Q&A numbers, but it does not clarify output format selection, error behavior for invalid paragraph numbers, or any prerequisites. This is adequate but not rich; a score of 3 reflects minimal transparency for a simple read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's primary function and additional return value. It is concise, avoids redundancy, and contains no fluff.

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?

Given the low complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it states the input (through schema) and the output (original text and Q&A numbers). It lacks explicit formatting details or error behavior, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, this is sufficient. It earns a 4 because the description could mention what happens if a paragraph is not found or whether both HTML and plain text are returned simultaneously.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters with examples and cross-references to get_standard_index. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('retrieves the original text') and the exact resource ('specific paragraph from K-IFRS/K-GAAP/Audit Standards'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_standard_index (which lists indexes) and get_qna (which returns Q&A details) by noting it also returns related Q&A numbers.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the original text of a specific standard paragraph. It provides context by mentioning the standards covered and the return of related Q&A numbers, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use get_qna for full Q&A details'), which is why it's a 4 rather than 5.

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