oa_law_get

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations: it returns metadata including license, explicitly excludes full text, and returns a hint if nothing is found. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a note on source, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary repetition.

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?

The tool has rich annotations, a detailed input schema, an output schema, and the description adds return behavior and the no-full-text caveat. For a single-record retrieval tool, this is complete and unambiguous.

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 description names both parameters (identifier and response_format) and adds that the identifier comes from oa_law_search results, which is helpful. However, it does not go into details like defaults or allowed values; the input schema itself provides those, but given the reported 0% schema description coverage, the description could compensate more.

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 the tool fetches a single OA law article via DOI or resolvable URL, using a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling oa_law_search by emphasizing it retrieves one result with metadata, not full text.

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 says identifiers come from oa_law_search results, implying it should be used after searching. It explicitly states that it returns metadata and no full text, which provides a clear exclusion. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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