Hent en EMD-dom i fulltekst

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does include the key behavioral trait: the output is truncated because judgments are often 30,000–300,000 characters. It also explains section as a jump-to location and maps 'FOR THESE REASONS' to the operative part. It does not mention behavior on missing sections or exact truncation limits, but those are partly covered by the schema's maxChars constraints.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the primary action, and the second adds the essential length/truncation context and the section usage hint. There is no filler or redundancy.

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-document retrieval tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient to call it correctly: itemid source, section values, and truncation behavior are all present. The main gap is the lack of any stated output format or error behavior, but the operation is simple enough that this is not critical.

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 schema already defines two of three parameters with examples and constrains maxChars with default/min/max (67% description coverage). The description adds 'THE FACTS' and the mapping of 'FOR THESE REASONS' to the conclusion, but it does not explicitly tie maxChars to the truncation behavior, so the added semantic value over the schema is modest.

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 clear action: fetch the text of one ECHR judgment using an itemid from a search hit. It is specific about the resource (EMD-avgjørelse) and the retrieval mechanism, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as caselaw_search or get_document to differentiate them.

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 phrase 'hentet på itemid fra et søketreff' places this tool after a search operation and tells the agent to supply a HUDOC id. The second sentence also gives concrete guidance on when to set section. However, it never states exclusions or names the alternative tools for other document types.

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