get_other_regulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the max-50 articles per call, that omitting article_no returns only article_count plus the number range (no text), and that undivided documents return full_text. It omits any pagination guidance for results exceeding 50 and says nothing about permissions or rate limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return behavior and then arg semantics, all earning their place. Minor redundancy: the 'no article number → range only / full_text' behavior is stated once in the body and again in the Args section.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains return shapes (articles with number/content, article_count, full_text) and the 50-item cap. The only meaningful gap is what to do when a regulation has more than 50 articles, since no pagination parameter exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it explains regulation_id's provenance and gives detailed article_no syntax with single ('15', '15-1', '第十五條之一'), range ('1~10'), and multi ('3,5,15-1') examples, plus the default behavior when blank. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string schema.

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 (取得/retrieve) and resource (條文 of 地方自治法規、條約協定、交易所規章), clearly delimiting it from the search-oriented sibling search_other_regulations. An agent can tell this is the fetch-by-id step for non-judgment legal documents.

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?

Explicitly ties regulation_id to the output of search_other_regulations, establishing the retrieval workflow after a search. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name competing get_* siblings, so routing is implied rather than fully explicit.

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