lsDelegated_service

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly warns that 'This API does NOT support HTML format (only XML/JSON)' and clarifies that JSON is actually not supported by the API despite the mention. While annotations cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive aspects, the description adds important API format constraints that aren't captured in structured fields.

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 well-structured with purpose statement, important warning, parameter explanations, return description, and example. While efficient, the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise, and the format warning appears in two places (main description and type parameter).

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides comprehensive parameter semantics and behavioral constraints. The main gap is the lack of output format details beyond 'Delegation hierarchy with delegated laws/rules/ordinances or error' - more specifics about the structure would be helpful given no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all parameters: 'id' and 'mst' as mutually required identifiers, 'oc' as an optional override with default behavior, and 'type' with format constraints and default value. It clarifies the relationship between id and mst ('required if mst not provided'/'required if id not provided') and notes that 'ctx' is injected automatically.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve delegated laws/rules/ordinances' with specific details about what information is returned ('delegation hierarchy and which specific articles delegate authority'). It distinguishes this from siblings by focusing specifically on delegated laws rather than general law search or other legal functions.

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 context about when to use this tool (for retrieving delegation hierarchies) and includes a specific example. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for different use cases.

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