icu:get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the return format (Markdown with Randnummern), partial extraction via 'section', and file-saving behavior via 'save_path'. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but for a retrieval tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by compact usage details. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input formats, optional parameters, return format, and save behavior. It lacks no critical operational details for a get_document tool and provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Even though the schema has 100% parameter coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond it: concrete examples for 'section' ('Rn 5-12', 'lines:100-200'), clarification that 'save_path' must be absolute, and the note that saving replaces returning content. This materially helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool retrieves a CJEU decision or opinion from InfoCuria by case number or CELEX number. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search tools by specifying the exact resource and identifier types.

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 provides clear usage guidance for optional parameters, explaining how to use 'section' with various syntaxes and when to use 'save_path'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'icu:search' or other getters, though the retrieval intent is clear.

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