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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the data coverage window and that long acts are paginated. It doesn't say what happens when act_id is unknown or whether paging is stable, but the additions are meaningful.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and the key identifier format. The parenthetical coverage window interrupts the act_id sentence slightly, 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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be explained; the description covers identifier format, coverage limits, and paging, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Missing only error/empty-result behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it supplies the act_id format example ('P.L.98-2026') and explains that limit/offset exist for paging long acts. Only defaults and integer typing remain unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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States a specific verb+resource ('The Code sections an act amended, added or repealed') with a scope detail (effective dates) that distinguishes it from siblings like ic_get_section and ic_browse. An agent can tell this returns an act's code-change footprint, not a single 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?

The coverage note ('loaded for 2017 and 2019 to 2026') implicitly tells the agent when this tool yields results, and the paging note tells it when to add limit/offset. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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