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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description layers on genuinely new behavior: credential-free meta access, the per-level payload contents, the currency block (computation day, commencement state, in-force version), and the pending_amendments labelling with an explicit warning that these are proposals, not law. That is unusually rich disclosure for a read 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?

Front-loaded with the retrieval verb and identifier forms, then organized level-by-level, with no filler sentences. It runs long for a three-parameter tool, but every sentence (particularly the pending_amendments caveat) carries operational weight.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: per-level contents, the currency block, and pending_amendments semantics are all spelled out. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description does add meaning for the detail parameter by explaining what each level returns. However, it describes three levels (meta/data/full) while the schema enum permits only "meta", a mismatch that could lead an agent to request an unsupported value; fetch_if_missing is not addressed in prose.

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 ("Retrieve one act") plus the four acceptable identifier forms and the three detail levels, so the purpose is unmistakable. It does not name the sibling search_instruments, so the differentiation from a search tool is left implicit rather than explicit.

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?

The description conveys real context — meta needs no credentials, data/full add parsed content and HTML — which implies when each level is appropriate. But it never says when to reach for this tool versus search_instruments, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites for a failed lookup.

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