get_saiketsu

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic retrieval function without disclosing any behavioral traits such as side effects, error conditions, or access requirements. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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, very concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose, and unnecessary details are omitted.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to specify, and typical usage scenario. It lacks details on behavior when parameters are omitted or conflicting, but overall it is sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the usage pattern (use URL OR combination of collection_no and case_no), clarifying the relationship between parameters beyond the schema.

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 the tool retrieves full text of decisions from the National Tax Tribunal, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_saiketsu (search) and get_law/get_tsutatsu (different document types).

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 mentions it is used after search_saiketsu to read full text, providing clear context. It also explains how to specify the target (URL or collection+case), but does not mention when not to use it, leaving minor ambiguity.

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