get_requirement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns a composite of four content sections, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe error behavior or what happens with an invalid slug, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and return contents, and the Args section is a single line that gives the parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to get the required parameter, and the annotations cover safety. The only missing piece is explicit error behavior for an invalid slug, but that is not essential for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that slug is a '条目标识' and tells the agent how to obtain it (via list_topics or search_compliance). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property name 'slug'.

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 states a specific verb ('取一条'), a specific resource ('合规要求的完整内容'), and enumerates the content components (正文 + 依据条文 + 落地动作 + 常见追问). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_topics and search_compliance, which are about discovery rather than retrieval of a single item.

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 implies usage context: it is for fetching a single requirement by slug, and it explicitly tells the agent to first use list_topics or search_compliance to obtain the slug. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisite guidance is clear and actionable.

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