dip_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it states that full text is returned, that output includes Gesetzesbegründung, and that save_path triggers export behavior only when the user wants a file. It could state more explicitly that a file is written to save_path, but the semantics are conveyed.

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 four short sentences with no filler. The core action and required identifier come first, followed by the output guarantee and then the two optional-parameter clarifications.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (extracted text including Gesetzesbegründung). It covers the required parameter, the optional section param, and the export-only save_path. A small gap is the lack of an explicit note about what happens when the document is not found, but this is not critical for selection and invocation.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that section is for partial extraction and that save_path is for file export, not normal return behavior.

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 contains a specific verb and resource: "Retrieve full text of a Bundestagsdrucksache by Dokumentnummer." It also gives a concrete example ("19/27426") and clearly differentiates this from the sibling search tools by requiring an exact document number.

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 clear usage direction for optional parameters: "Use `section` for partial content" and "`save_path` is for export only." It does not explicitly tell the agent to use the sibling dip_search tools when no Dokumentnummer is known, but for this tool's narrow retrieval purpose the guidance is otherwise clear.

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