hr_get_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Fetch' aligns with these hints but adds no extra behavioral detail such as authentication requirements or potential errors, so the description adds no value beyond 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 sentence that states the action and object succinctly, with no wasted words or redundant details. It is excellently front-loaded.

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 complete input schema, rich safety annotations, and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the tool is fully specified. The short description is sufficient for a simple document-fetch 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter (year, issue, doc) having clear descriptions and examples. The description itself does not add further parameter meaning, but the schema already carries the full load, meeting the baseline.

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 a specific verb 'Fetch' and names the resource: 'full official HTML text of a document by ELI coordinate.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hr_list_issue (listing issues) and hr_get_act (retrieving acts specifically).

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?

No usage guidance is provided beyond the tool's basic function. It does not mention alternatives like hr_get_act or state when to prefer this tool, so the usage context is only implied.

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