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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses scope (numbers and titles only, not body text) and relative cost vs get_full_act, which is useful. It does not disclose return format (e.g., structure of the list), pagination, or whether it requires an exact act_code match. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the usage context and contrast. No filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and routing to alternatives. Slightly incomplete regarding return shape and error behavior, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single parameter act_code already documents format and examples ('BNS', 'MVA'). The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate for a 1-param tool with full coverage.

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 (list) and resource (section numbers and titles in one Act), plus explicitly excludes body text. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_full_act and get_section, which the description names as complement/contrast.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use: 'browse what exists in an Act before deciding which specific section or chapter to fetch in full.' It names the alternative (get_full_act) and why this one is preferable (much shorter), giving a clear routing rule.

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