it_get_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format options, article scoping, at_date behavior). It does not mention return format specifics, limitations, or any runtime considerations. No contradiction with annotations, but no extra disclosure either.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object ('Fetch the text'). It has no filler, redundant wording, or repetition of schema details. Every word serves to communicate the primary 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 presence of an output schema and detailed input schema descriptions, the minimal description is sufficient. It covers the core purpose without needing to explain return values or parameter details, as those are already in structured fields. The only minor gap is that it doesn't contextualize when to prefer this over it_get_act, but that's more a usage guideline issue.

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%, with each parameter (reference, format, article, at_date) having its own description. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema, so the meaning is fully available from structured data.

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') and the resource ('text of a whole act or a single article'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like it_get_act (which likely retrieves act metadata) by explicitly scoping to text content. The verb is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives a clear idea of when to use the tool (when you need act/article text), but it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. Usage is implied from the purpose rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools. Lacks guidance like 'use this instead of it_get_act for full text'.

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