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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses sign-in prerequisites, result ordering, pagination via next_cursor, exact totals and issuer counts, and edge-case behavior for windows beyond the feed. The incomplete/total_at_least/coverage_through explanation is especially valuable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the sign-in requirement and then the core purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information. It is somewhat dense and occasionally repeats parameter details already in the schema, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 complex, authenticated, paginated listing tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, pagination, totals, ordering, and unusual coverage-edge responses well. It does not describe the individual act record fields, leaving a minor completeness gap for return-value expectations.

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 all seven parameters are already documented structurally. The description reinforces date-window and issuer semantics with examples, but it adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 with clear scope: every held act the register registered between two dates, newest first, with total and issuer counts, paginated via next_cursor. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_law by saying that search_law ranks provisions by a question while this lists acts by registration date.

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 gives concrete usage examples such as 'what was published in TAR yesterday', ministry orders with issuer='SADM', Government resolutions, and inspectorate rules. It also names the alternative search_law and the condition that selects it, leaving little inference about when to use this tool.

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