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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context: the result is the live current state of a single ACT and it is scoped to "your" ACTs, which signals an ownership/visibility boundary. It does not cover failure modes (unknown id, expired ACT), which keeps it off a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and its endpoint. The second sentence carries the domain naming convention rather than padding, though it slightly mixes presentation advice into a tool definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say something about what the returned ACT contains; "as it stands" implies current state but gives no sense of the fields an agent will have to reason over. Annotations and schema are otherwise rich enough that nothing critical is missing 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 a minor hint about id formatting ("without act_"), but the schema already states ids are accepted with or without the prefix, and the `key` header-fallback parameter is not mentioned in the description at all.

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?

"One of your ACTs as it stands" plus the concrete endpoint mapping GET /api/v1/acts/{id} makes it unambiguous that this is a single-resource read, not a list or mutation. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g. get_catalog, list_events) to distinguish scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus siblings like get_catalog or quote_act, nor any precondition for use. The only conditional language ("When you tell your Principal about it...") concerns how to present results, not when to invoke the tool.

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