il_get_law

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. The phrase 'full detail' adds some context but lacks specifics about the response structure. Overall, the description adds moderate 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?

A single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words or information. It is well front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 (one required parameter), full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the input sufficiently and, with annotations covering behavioral traits, nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema description for the sole parameter is clear ('the Knesset OData IsraelLawID (from `il_search_laws`)'). The tool description adds no further parameter information, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 ('Fetch full detail'), the resource ('one Israeli law'), and the identifier ('by its IsraelLawID'). It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like 'il_search_laws' which search rather than fetch by ID.

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 that the tool should be used when a specific IsraelLawID is known, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings, but the simple one-parameter design makes it straightforward.

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