de_get_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: how the manifestation is resolved and that format selection depends on file extension rather than Accept headers. This goes beyond annotations and helps an agent anticipate the tool's behavior without exceeding what annotations already provide.

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. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat about format selection is stated succinctly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and mechanics.

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 text-fetching tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential resolution and download behavior, plus the non-standard format selection quirk. It doesn't address failure cases or the exact return format, but the output schema likely handles that. What's missing (e.g., handling of missing formats, network errors) is minor and not required 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% with good descriptions for both parameters. The description enriches this by explaining the role of 'format' in the resolution process (file extension upstream) and hints at the 'eli' being the expression-level identifier via the encoding array. This adds meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions, so it earns above the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the full text of an act') and explains the mechanism (resolving from the encoding array and downloading). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like de_get_act (presumably metadata) and other text-fetching tools, even without naming them explicitly.

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 implies usage—when you need the full text of an act, use this tool—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like de_get_act or de_get_decision_text. The mention of 'Format is selected by file extension upstream' gives a behavioral caveat but not when to choose this tool over others. It is clear for the primary use case, but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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