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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-duplicative behavior: hasHierarchy=false is a flat section list rather than an error, numeric sort with alphabetic suffixes, and a 2-credit cost. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences, all front-loaded with the core purpose first, then usage cues, then behavioral caveats, then cost. Each sentence carries information; the trailing "Cost: 2 credits." fragment is terse but useful.

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. Combined with the flat-list caveat, sort order, and cost, the definition gives an agent enough to call and interpret results correctly; only the relationship to specific sibling tools is left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter (act_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving a detailed warning about hand-built ids 404ing. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, 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 resource (an act's table of contents) and its structure (chapters/parts with provisions beneath). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_act_text or get_act_section, which return content rather than navigational structure, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 locating a section or planning a traversal of the act" gives clear positive usage context and implies the TOC/navigation role versus content-fetching siblings. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is provided, keeping it short of a 5.

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