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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses a critical corpus-specific behavior: the India corpus serves publisher links rather than inline text, so text carries the title and metadata carries PDF, HTML, and plain-text URLs. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 primary action and return shape are front-loaded in the first sentence. The following sentences each add necessary context: alternate accepted inputs, the publisher-link quirk, and the sibling preference. No sentence is wasted.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail, yet it still highlights the unusual text and metadata behavior. With annotations covering safety and the description covering the corpus quirk and alternative tool, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by saying the id comes from a search result and that a source URL or bare path is also accepted, but it does not provide examples or format constraints for those alternate forms. The semantic help is real but incomplete for a zero-coverage parameter.

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: fetching one Indian enactment by id from a search result, and it lists the returned shape. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_act_text by explicitly preferring that tool when available.

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 tells the agent exactly where the id comes from (a search result) and gives an explicit alternative: prefer get_act_text if you can call it. The fallback condition 'if you can call it' makes the routing decision between the two tools clear.

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