Get Provision (local module)

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is deterministic, offline, and resolves provisions via citable handles. It mentions dependencies and return types (provision text with provenance or typed not-found). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or error behavior beyond the not-found case, leaving minor gaps.

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 of three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It efficiently incorporates dependencies, offline nature, and fallback behavior. While clear, the structure could be slightly improved by separating prerequisites from behavior, but overall it is concise and informative.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (provision text with provenance or not-found) and mentions the fallthrough mechanism. It covers dependencies and offline context. However, it does not detail the structure of the provenance information or any performance characteristics, leaving some gaps for a complex tool with multiple parameters.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds limited parameter-specific meaning: it references 'citable handle' for act and provision, consistent with the schema. No extra details are provided for the module or format parameters beyond what the schema already documents. Thus, the description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 identifies the tool's function: deterministic provision lookup over installed local data modules (offline). It distinguishes from siblings by stating it does not use embedding or ranking, contrasting with semantic search tools like semantic_search_local. The mention of fallthrough to live AustLII further differentiates its scope.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: for offline, deterministic lookups. It explains the result type (provision text with provenance or not-found) and the fallback mechanism to live AustLII, implying when not to use it (when online or non-deterministic results are needed). Prerequisites (@duckdb/node-api and installed modules) are stated, but it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like resolve_citation.

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