ca_get_text

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

Annotations already communicate that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the result is 'full consolidated XML text', but it does not disclose return-envelope behavior, language handling, or any other operational context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It immediately conveys the verb, resource, and output format without filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only meaningful gap is the lack of sibling-relation guidance, but that is secondary for basic 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 description coverage is 100%, and both 'code' and 'lang' are documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not need to compensate for schema gaps; baseline 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 uses a specific verb (Fetch) and a precise resource (full consolidated XML text of a Canadian federal act or regulation). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the siblings ca_get_document and ca_coverage by emphasizing 'full consolidated XML text'.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over ca_get_document or ca_coverage. It neither names alternatives nor provides exclusion criteria, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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