Compare an act between two dates

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the output nature (sections added/removed/reworded) and the optional line-by-line diff behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra clarity beyond them.

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 primary purpose and followed by the optional behavior. No redundant wording; every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and optional section behavior, which is reasonably complete for a read-only diff tool with no output schema. However, it does not mention what output to expect without a section (summary vs. details) or how it relates to sibling tools like get_amendment_status, leaving slight gaps.

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 40%, with only dateA and dateB described. The description clarifies the 'section' parameter ('Give a section number for a line-by-line diff'), but titleId and page remain underspecified. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves key parameter meanings implicit.

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 states what the tool does: 'Shows what changed in an act between two dates' with specific detail on the types of changes (added, removed, reworded). It also distinguishes itself by specifying an optional section-level diff, which differs from sibling tools that retrieve single-version text or amendment status.

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 implies usage for comparing versions of an act over time, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_law_as_at or get_amendment_status. It gives context but no exclusions or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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