get_authority

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and it excels: it discloses that the API does not expose default_law, that the default is recomputed using a specific ordering, that it is almost always the meta law, and that this means the API cannot be used to file under a specific act. This is valuable behavioral information beyond the schema.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the rest is a tight caveat plus parameter note. The technical detail about froide's order_by is dense but earns its place because it explains why the tool behaves as it does. No unnecessary 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?

For a one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential bases: what the tool returns, how the default law is computed, a key limitation, and the argument semantics. It could add explicit sibling routing or expected return structure, but it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining id as 'numeric public body id', which adds real semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic integer title 'Id'. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 it returns the full record for one public body, including its laws, and identifies the resource as a public body. It distinguishes itself from search_authorities by emphasizing singular retrieval, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you need a complete record for a known public body by id. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over search_authorities or get_law, and no stated exclusions beyond the filing limitation.

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