es_get_text

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description complements them by specifying the output format (XML) and the ability to fetch whole or by block. It does not add details like rate limits or auth, but the bar is lower given the existing annotations and the simple nature of the operation.

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 that efficiently communicates the core function and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema/annotation information, making it an exemplar of concise writing.

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?

Given the simple tool with 2 parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It clarifies the return format (XML) and the optional block scope, which complements the schema. A higher score would require more explicit context such as size warnings, but these are not essential for this straightforward read operation.

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 schema provides full coverage (100%) with clear descriptions for both boe_id and block_id, including an example and guidance on omitting block_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the consolidated text (XML) of a law, with the option for whole or by block. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like es_get_index (which likely provides block identifiers) and es_get_act (which may handle different act data).

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 the tool is used to retrieve law text, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like es_get_index or es_get_act. The schema mentions block_id from es_get_index, hinting at a workflow, but the description itself lacks direct guidance on tool selection.

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