pk_get_law

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that large statutes are truncated, which is a behavioral trait affecting the result. This adds value beyond the safety profile 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?

The description consists of two concise sentences, no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the truncation caveat is placed second.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers the essential information: what it does, how to get the input, and a critical limitation (truncation). No further details are necessary.

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 parameter 'law_id' is described in the schema as 'the corpus file name', but the description adds concrete context: it comes from pk_search_laws and provides an example format. With 100% schema coverage, this extra context elevates clarity.

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 the full text of one federal statute.' It also specifies the scope (one statute) and a key constraint (truncation for large statutes). This differentiates it from siblings like pk_case_search and pk_get_decision.

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 implicitly guides usage by mentioning truncation, warning agents that large statutes may not be fully returned. It also references pk_search_laws for obtaining the law_id, suggesting a preceding search step. However, explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings is absent.

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