get_legislation_text

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the markdown return format, the pageability, the real size scale (megabytes), and the existence of a truncation note that feeds the offset parameter. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or whether very large paginations are throttled, which are the remaining gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 core behavior and the most important decision (prefer TOC/provision for big codes) are front-loaded in the opening sentence. The 'Args:' docstring block is terse and wastes nothing, though its mechanical list format reads slightly less naturally than prose and the size threshold for 'big codes' stays qualitative.

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 four-parameter paginated fetch with an output schema, the description covers what the output is, how to page it, how to resume from truncation, and which siblings to prefer. Missing safety/annotation context and any explicit guidance on continuing pagination until complete keeps it short of full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: all four parameters are explained. jurisdiction is a code from list_jurisdictions with concrete examples ('nl', 'gb'), id is sourced from search_legislation, max_chars is the page size with its default stated, and offset is defined as the continuation point taken from the truncation note — a semantic link the bare integer schema cannot convey.

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 and resource: 'Full consolidated (current) text of a law as markdown, pageable.' The qualifier 'consolidated (current)' distinguishes it from a historical-versions fetch, and the sibling tools get_legislation_toc and get_legislation_provision are named as narrower alternatives, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Big codes run to megabytes; prefer get_legislation_toc + get_legislation_provision.' It also tells the agent where each required argument comes from — jurisdiction from list_jurisdictions and id from search_legislation — which is exactly the prerequisite chain an agent needs before invoking.

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