get_authority

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond the word 'generated' and JSON-LD/schema URLs, it says nothing about read-only behavior, error handling for unknown IDs, authentication, or rate limits, which is a notable gap for a tool with zero 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?

Two terse sentences with the operative constraint front-loaded; no filler. The schema/context URLs are compact but slightly interrupt the flow, costing a point against ideal front-loading.

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 lookup this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say something about the returned representation. The JSON-LD schema and context links partially compensate by pointing at the record format, but the description itself remains thin.

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 coverage is already 100% and includes a concrete example ID, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the value must be an authority ID rather than a source matter ID, which is the single most likely failure mode when invoking this tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Obligation-First authority record') and disambiguates the identifier type ('by authority ID, not a source matter ID'), which separates it from get_record/get_obligation_first_record. It does not name sibling tools directly, but the activity is unambiguous.

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 'not a source matter ID' clause gives useful negative guidance about the wrong identifier, which implies when this tool is appropriate versus record-lookup tools. It never states when to prefer get_authority over list_authorities or how to obtain a valid authority ID, so usage is only implied.

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