il_get_law

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('full detail') beyond the annotations, but does not disclose other traits like response size or error behavior. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place, conveying the action, resource, and identifier mechanism efficiently.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read operation with comprehensive annotations and an output schema. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, provides all necessary context for the agent to invoke the tool correctly. No major gaps exist.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already explains the source and type of `israel_law_id` (Knesset OData IsraelLawID from `il_search_laws`). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource ('full detail for one Israeli law') and the unique identifier ('IsraelLawID'). This distinctly separates it from sibling search tools like il_search_laws and document-focused tools like il_get_law_documents.

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 usage when an IsraelLawID is already known, and the parameter description explicitly mentions the ID comes from `il_search_laws`, establishing a clear workflow context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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