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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does describe the returned payload (name, year, repealed/replaced status), which is genuinely useful given no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, invalid act_code handling, or error behavior.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then lists the returned fields with zero filler or redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the fields returned, which is the critical missing context for this tool. It stops short of complete behavioral coverage (error cases, source of repeal data), but covers what an agent needs to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself enumerates the valid act_code values, so the parameter is fully documented. The description adds only that the code identifies 'one specific Act', which is baseline-level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get metadata about one specific Act') and enumerates the returned fields (full name, year enacted, currency/repeal status). It is clearly distinct from list_acts and get_full_act in scope, 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?

Usage is implied by 'one specific Act' – the agent infers this is the lookup for a single act's metadata rather than a listing or full text. No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g., why not get_full_act) are provided.

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