garant_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so exceptionally well. It reveals that output is normalized HTML rather than a machine-readable original, that `_нормализация` is always present, that editorial inserts may appear unchecked, that `_предупреждение` can indicate either incomplete or redundant text, and that exact verbatim comparison is not guaranteed. This is far beyond typical behavioral disclosure.

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 long, but almost every sentence adds necessary context for a high-stakes legal citation tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds dense, non-redundant caveats. The meta-comment about not repeating `_нормализация` details is slightly verbose but serves a real purpose in preventing instruction drift.

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 complex tool with response warnings, normalization caveats, and chain requirements, the description covers nearly all critical operational context: when to use it, how the cut is made, what the two response keys mean, and what the tool cannot guarantee. The only notable omission is doc_id semantics, but the output schema exists and the most subtle behaviors are already explained.

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 description gives article thorough semantics: it is a number like '97', '109', or '5', and it explains how the cut is assembled. However, doc_id is never mentioned or described; only its name and schema title indicate it is a document identifier. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves one required parameter under-specified.

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 opening phrase 'Дословный текст конкретной статьи или пункта' clearly identifies the tool's function: returning verbatim text of a specific article or point. The later phrase 'Основной инструмент сверки цитат' adds a clear functional role. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns', and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicitly positions the tool as the main citation-verification step before submitting a document and instructs the user not to truncate a quote mid-sentence. It also explains the chain assembly and notes that no separate 'article' endpoint exists. However, it does not name sibling tools to exclude or give explicit 'use X instead' guidance, so it is clear but not fully directive.

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