Read one clause

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds valuable nuances: the revision count stays 0 on the free tier, and ambiguous partial-title matches are refused and returned as candidates. It doesn't cover not-found or permission behavior, but for a simple read this is solid.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

The description summarizes the return payload and important edge cases, which is helpful given the lack of an output schema. It omits what happens on no match and does not explicitly state that id or title is required, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward getter.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful matching semantics beyond the schema, especially the refusal behavior for ambiguous partial titles. It also implies id and title are alternative selectors, though it doesn't explicitly require at least one.

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 ('Return') and resource ('one clause in full by id or title'), and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like clause_list or clause_search.

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 context is clear: use it to retrieve a single clause by id or title. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as clause_search or clause_list, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The distinction is implied rather than stated.

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