fedlex_get_consultation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: deadline and days_remaining with timezone, derived status, status_conflict, and handling of missing hasSubTask (deadline=null, no throw). This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with purpose. Structured tags (use_case, important_notes, example) add value without unnecessary text. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present (not shown), the description need not explain return values. It covers use case, behavioral details, and example. Could be more explicit about the object returned, but it is sufficient for a detail retrieval tool.

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?

Context indicates schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description provides an example event_id and mentions its source, but does not elaborate on the language parameter. Although the schema includes descriptions, the tool description adds only marginal meaning. Baseline for low coverage is higher, but the description does not fully compensate.

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 consultation details by event ID. The use_case tag elaborates that it shows full procedure with deadlines, lead office, status, documents, linking to legal resources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fedlex_get_open_consultations (list) and fedlex_search_consultations (search).

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 implies usage after obtaining an eventId from fedlex_get_open_consultations (mentioned in important_notes). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_consultations), nor provides when-not or exclusions. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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