openlex__zhlaw_get_article

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safety. Description adds specifics: supports standard/letter/bis article numbers, returns title/paragraphs/full text, returns count=0 if not found, and format requirements like omitting 'Art.' prefix.

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?

Structured with XML tags (use_case, important_notes, example) that organize information efficiently. Every sentence is necessary, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers all needed context: what it retrieves, error behavior (count=0), and format requirements. Output schema exists, so return value details are not required.

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 already cover parameter formats and examples. Tool description adds a concrete example but no new semantic information beyond the schema, which already specifies 'Ohne 'Art.' Prefix' and examples.

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 states 'Extrahiert einen einzelnen Artikel aus einem Zürcher Gesetz' with a use case that clarifies when to use it and distinguishes it from sibling tool openlex__zhlaw_search_articles for searching.

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 includes a <use_case> block describing when to use (exact wording needed, known identifiers) and directs to openlex__zhlaw_search_articles for finding articles first.

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