ro_get_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, lowering the bar for additional disclosure. The description adds meaningful context: it returns the *full* text and highlights the need for disambiguation when number+year may be ambiguous, which is beyond what the annotations provide.

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 that conveys the essential purpose and a key usage nuance. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 rich annotations, the description is adequate for correct selection and invocation. It covers the core purpose and disambiguation logic, though it omits explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, which is partially covered in the usage dimension.

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 (year, number, tip_act) already documented. The description minimally restates the schema ('by number + year (disambiguate with tip_act)') without adding new semantic meaning, 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: the full Romanian text of an act, identified by number and year. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ro_search (search-oriented) and ro_get_act (likely retrieving act metadata) by focusing on full-text retrieval.

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 when to use this tool (when full text is needed) but does not explicitly compare against alternatives. It does mention the disambiguation parameter 'tip_act', which is a usage guideline, but no explicit when/to/not-to guidance relative to siblings is provided.

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