get_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description still contributes real behavioral context: the result is verbatim and exact, independent of search ranking, which tells the agent the output is authoritative text rather than a ranked snippet. It says nothing about behavior when the act or article does not resolve, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and the key differentiator (verbatim, ranking-independent) front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple two-required-parameter read. What an agent still might want — behavior on ambiguous act names or a missing article number — is absent, but the definition is otherwise sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (act, article) are already documented with accepted forms including '24', 'art. 24' and 'Articolul 24'. The description's mention of citation-by-number largely restates that, adding little syntax or constraint information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return one article of one act verbatim, by number') and scope ('one article of one act'), which is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from ranking-based search siblings ('does not depend on search ranking') but never distinguishes itself from find_exact or outline, which are the most plausible confusions.

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?

It states an explicit trigger condition: use this whenever an article is cited by number, with a concrete citation example ('art. 24 din Regulament'). It does not state when-not to use it or name an alternative sibling for the non-citation case, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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