es_get_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a modest behavioral constraint by specifying that the tool expects a 'consolidated law' and returns articles/titles, but it does not disclose any operational behaviors such as pagination, error handling, or special cases, which would be valuable beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It directly states the tool's function in minimal space, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the core purpose. However, terms like 'consolidated law' and 'block index' are left undefined, and there is no mention of edge cases or return value semantics beyond the schema, so it is not fully complete for an agent unfamiliar with the legal domain.

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 fully documents the sole parameter boe_id with an example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description contributes no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'block index (articles, titles)' of a 'consolidated law', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like es_get_text or es_get_act. The parenthetical clarifies the content of the index, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like es_get_text or es_get_act, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is derived from the purpose statement itself, offering essentially no strategic direction for an agent deciding between tools.

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