get_governing_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' and lists return values, which are likely already covered by the output schema. It does not disclose error handling, prerequisites, or any other behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear sections for description, args, and returns. Every line serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous 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?

For a simple one-parameter get tool, the description covers the essential purpose and return values. However, with no annotations and no differentiation from sibling tools, there are gaps in usage guidance and behavioral transparency, making it just adequate.

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 merely restates the parameter name and adds 'The charity's registration number,' which provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's type and title. It does not clarify format, source, or validation rules for the registration_number.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves charitable objects and governing document for a charity, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like financials, trustees, and details, which cover different aspects of charity data.

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 when governance-related information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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