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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so reasonably: it discloses the return shape (numbers and titles only, body text excluded) and the cost tradeoff versus get_full_act. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or failure modes for an invalid act_code, which keeps it from 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 sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint ('without the full body text') front-loaded before the usage guidance. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return semantics, and it does by specifying section number and title only. Minor gaps remain on ordering, pagination, and behavior for unknown act codes.

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?

'in one Act' implies the single act_code selects exactly one Act, adding mild meaning. Schema coverage is 100% and the act_code description already supplies examples, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (section numbers and titles within one Act) and an explicit scope limit ('without the full body text'). It also names the sibling it contrasts with (get_full_act), so an agent can distinguish it from the heavier fetch tools without reading a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: to browse what exists in an Act before deciding which section or chapter to fetch in full. It names get_full_act as the heavier alternative. It does not address the other listing siblings (list_acts, get_act_info) or state exclusions, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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