fr_get_deliberation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral information beyond what is in the annotations, such as potential rate limits or side effects.

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, short, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous information.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's basic operation and dependencies.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for deliberation_id that explains its format and source. The main description repeats this information, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 action 'Consult' and the resource 'a CNIL deliberation', and specifies the id format 'CNILTEXT...'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like fr_search (which finds the id) and other get tools for different document types.

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 mentions the id source ('from fr_search on fond CNIL'), implying this tool is used after obtaining the id via fr_search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the implicit dependency.

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