xem_van_ban_goc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list if multiple matches exist, defaults to truncating at ~15,000 characters, and offers a 'day_du' option for full text. It also mentions the source (Công báo Chính phủ). No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single paragraph that is fairly concise but could be better structured (e.g., using bullet points). It front-loads the purpose and adds important notes. It is not overly verbose, but some organization would improve readability.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, parameter explanations, and special cases (duplicates, truncation). It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a retrieval tool with 3 parameters, it is reasonably 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains 'so_hieu' with an example, clarifies 'loai' as a disambiguation parameter with concrete types, and describes 'day_du' as a boolean to retrieve full text. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 that the tool retrieves official documents by number, including metadata and full text from the Government Gazette. It uses a specific verb 'Xem' and resource 'VĂN BẢN GỐC'. While it mentions the uniqueness issue, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tra_van_ban' or 'xem_dieu_luat'.

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 guidance on when to use the tool and how to handle duplicate results by using the 'loai' parameter. It also explains the default behavior (truncation) and how to get full text. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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