icu_get_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the Markdown return format including Randnummern markup, the internal CELEX conversion, partial-content extraction, and the file-writing side effect of save_path. It does not describe error behavior or file-overwrite semantics, but the main behaviors and side effects are clearly surfaced.

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 compact and dense, with each sentence carrying distinct and necessary information: target and return format, identifier resolution, section usage, and save_path usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant filler.

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 description covers all four parameters, the return format, identifier conversion behavior, partial extraction syntax, and the file-saving use case. Even without an output schema or annotations, an agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly and to understand how it relates to icu_search.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains why the three case_id forms are equivalent, which forms are faster to resolve, and gives concrete examples for section and save_path usage. This helps the agent choose appropriate values rather than just satisfy schema constraints.

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?

States the specific operation — retrieve a CJEU decision or opinion from InfoCuria — and names the three accepted identifier forms. It is clearly distinct from search siblings by focusing on full-text retrieval and references icu_search's Logic Doc ID as an input source.

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?

Gives explicit guidance on which identifier form to use, notes that CELEX numbers and Logic Doc IDs resolve with one request fewer, and explains when to use section and save_path. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling get tools such as eul_get_document, so exclusions are mostly left to the tool name and purpose.

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