hu_get_text

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing that the output is HTML content, that issuer codes are case-sensitive, and that the tool behaves differently for Acts vs. other document types, which enriches the behavioral understanding.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the main purpose, followed by a focused usage note. Every word contributes, with no repetition or filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only annotations, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the essential use cases. It explains the key distinction between Acts and other documents, which is the main contextual complexity, and doesn't leave obvious gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description elevates this by explaining the relationship between doc_type and issuer (omit issuer for TV, require issuer otherwise) and providing concrete examples like 'TV' and 'R'. This goes beyond mere parameter listing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the full document HTML content of a Hungarian piece of legislation.' This clearly states the tool's function, and the subsequent guidance about Acts vs. other types differentiates it from sibling tools like hu_get_act or hu_get_legislation.

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 explicitly tells when to pass doc_type="TV" and omit issuer, and when to pass the issuer code, even directing users to hu_list_issuers for valid codes. This provides concrete conditions for use and points to a sibling tool, making usage guidance clear.

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