il_get_law_documents

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that the result consists of official PDF files for a published law version, which is useful but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or error conditions.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately structured and immediately clear.

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 presence of a full output schema, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and only one parameter with a clear schema explanation, the short description is sufficient to complete the picture. It could mention whether multiple files are returned, but the plural 'files' implies that, and the output schema would clarify.

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 tool description itself contains no parameter information. However, the input schema provides a detailed description for law_id (KNS_Law id from il_search_law_texts, not israel_law_id), and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as returning official PDF document files for one published law version, differentiating it from siblings like il_get_law by specifying file type. Although no explicit verb is present, the noun phrase conveys the retrieval action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like il_get_law or il_search_law_texts. The only usage hint appears in the schema's law_id description, which instructs sourcing the ID from il_search_law_texts, but that is not in the tool description itself.

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