get_emsal_document_markdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('clean Markdown format'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output format. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary use case, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and output format, and the output schema will handle return value details. However, it could benefit from more explicit differentiation from sibling search tools to fully guide usage.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but it implies the 'id' is needed to retrieve a specific document. Since there's only one parameter and its purpose is reasonably inferred from context, this compensates adequately for the low schema coverage.

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 an Emsal precedent decision and returning it in clean Markdown format. It specifies both the action ('retrieving') and resource ('Emsal precedent decision'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_emsal_detailed_decisions' or other document retrieval tools.

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 some usage guidance with 'Use this when retrieving full text of an Emsal precedent decision,' which implies this is for full document retrieval rather than search. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like the search tools among siblings, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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