dip:get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'extracted text including Gesetzesbegründung', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, its side effects, or any authentication/rate-limit requirements. The behavior is broadly understood as a retrieval, but lacks explicit transparency.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first explains the main retrieval, second covers optional param usage. No superfluous text, highly efficient.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and optional uses. It could be improved by mentioning the return format (e.g., plain text) or error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example format for 'dokumentnummer' and explaining that 'section' can be heading text or line ranges, and that 'save_path' alters the return behavior. This enriches the schema descriptions without redundancy.

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 specifies the action (retrieve full text), the resource (Bundestagsdrucksache by Dokumentnummer), and provides a concrete example ('19/27426'). It also distinguishes usage for partial content via 'section' and file saving via 'save_path', separating it from sibling search tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the optional parameters ('Use `section` for partial content or `save_path` to save to file'), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools (e.g., dip:search). The context of sibling names implies the distinction, so the guidance is effective but not fully explicit.

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