get_bedesten_document_markdown

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate read-only and idempotent operations, the description specifies the return format ('clean Markdown format') and clarifies this is for 'full text' retrieval. This helps the agent understand the output characteristics that annotations don't cover.

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 extremely concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence clearly states when to use the tool, and the second sentence specifies the return format. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text.

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 presence of both annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It specifies the document source scope and output format, which complements the structured data well. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the relationship to search operations given the many sibling search tools.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'documentId' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.

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: retrieving full text of court decisions in Markdown format. It specifies the resource ('Bedesten-supported court decision') and the action ('retrieving full text'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bddk_document_markdown' or 'get_emsal_document_markdown' which likely serve similar purposes for different document sources.

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 basic context ('when retrieving full text of any Bedesten-supported court decision') but doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools present, the description doesn't clarify if this should be used after a search operation or as a standalone retrieval method.

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