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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (compact list of act_code, official name, enactment year) and the token-optimization intent, which is valuable given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about no-match behavior, result completeness, or error handling.

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 routing instruction is front-loaded in a bracket prefix, and the return shape follows immediately. The six examples are somewhat repetitive but do usefully illustrate the topic-to-code mapping behavior.

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 correctly explains the return values and their compactness, which is the key missing structured information. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter resolver, lacking only failure/no-match semantics.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description's examples ('environment', 'hindu', 'cheque') largely restate the schema's own examples and add no new syntax or format constraints, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find the exact act_code(s)') and explicitly names the sibling it replaces ('Use this instead of list_acts'). An agent can distinguish it from list_acts and search_keyword without opening any 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 routes the agent: use this instead of list_acts for resolving a topic/statute to act codes. The bracket prefix and the six worked examples make the intended call pattern unambiguous.

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