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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that an entity with no acts returns a 'clean record' rather than a missing answer, which is a key behavioral nuance for result interpretation. It also outlines the response content, but does not mention error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. Overall, it provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 description is two sentences, both essential and front-loaded. The first sentence presents the core functionality and output, while the second clarifies a potential misinterpretation of empty results. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description provides useful details about the return data (institution, parties, seized assets) and clarifies the clean record behavior. It is not exhaustive (e.g., no date ranges or pagination), but it is sufficiently complete for a focused data retrieval tool alongside clear sibling context.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including a regex pattern and description for 'code' and a detailed explanation for 'interpret'. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the tool's function: retrieving property seizure acts for a Lithuanian legal entity, including the imposing institution, parties, and seized assets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_court_cases or get_beneficial_owners by focusing on seizure-specific data.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It only mentions the clean record interpretation, which addresses data semantics rather than tool selection. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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