get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the retrieval behavior and paragraph selection via examples, but does not describe return format, error cases, or any special behavior. For a simple read operation this is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with usage examples, article format guidance, and a law ID list, all relevant to invocation. It repeats the core statement twice at the start, which is a minor inefficiency.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers all parameters, gives examples, and includes authoritative law ID values. A return-format note would be nice but is not essential for correct invocation.

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 value by explaining article number formats (漢数字/アラビア数字) and providing a list of common law IDs, which helps an agent construct valid parameters.

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 specific action (取得) and resource (条文) with law_id and article number. It is distinguishable from search_laws and get_law_text by its focus on a specific article, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 provides concrete usage examples and conditions: use it when you know the law_id and article number. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the examples make the intended use case clear.

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