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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding genuine behavioral nuance: the warning that the three fields are not one verdict, the caveat that repealClaim does not verify the repealing instrument was brought into force, and the explicit 1-credit cost.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its three output fields, then usage, then caveats, then cost. Every sentence carries weight. The phrasing is slightly compressed and makes the reader parse clauses, but nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers purpose, when to use, the semantic ambiguity between the three status fields, and the credit cost. It could say a bit more about what each field's presence/absence means, but it is essentially complete.

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% and the sole act_id parameter is richly documented in the schema itself (pattern, example, and a note about hand-built ids 404ing). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource (an act), the specific operation (retrieve status), and enumerates the exact fields returned: publisherStatus, servedStatus, repealClaim. That level of specificity clearly separates it from siblings like get_act_amendments or get_act_section.

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?

"Use when assessing whether an act remains law or why it is unavailable" gives a clear triggering context. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or a case where a sibling should be preferred instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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