tr_get_legislation_content

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond clarifying that it fetches the full text, and no contradictions exist. It does not disclose edge cases or rate limits, but the output schema covers return format.

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, direct sentence that clearly states the action and resource. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations. The description, while brief, is sufficient given the structured information. It could explicitly mention retrieving the ID from search, but that is already covered in the schema parameter description, making the context effectively complete.

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 sole parameter mevzuat_id is fully described in the schema with an explanation that it comes from tr_search_legislation. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, and with 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full text of a Turkish legislative document' with the lookup by mevzuat_id. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like tr_get_legislation_toc (which would fetch a table of contents) and tr_search_legislation (which searches).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the phrase 'full text' implies it is for retrieving complete content as opposed to the TOC tool. Additionally, the parameter schema mentions the ID comes from a tr_search_legislation result, which is a usage hint, but that is in the schema rather than the description.

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