Read an act as it stood on a date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds context that the register retains every historical version and that the output shape matches get_law_text, providing useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a cross-reference in the second. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of superfluous text.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination (page), section filtering (section), or the 'full' flag, nor does it define 'compilation' in detail. The reference to get_law_text hints at output structure but does not fully convey the behavior for all parameters.

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?

With schema coverage only at 20%, the description is expected to explain parameter meanings. It only hints at the 'date' parameter ('on the given date') and does not address 'titleId', 'full', 'page', or 'section'. This leaves agents without guidance for most inputs, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'Commonwealth act' with the specific temporal qualifier 'as it stood on the given date'. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Same output shape as get_law_text', which signals a relationship to a likely current-version tool.

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 when to use this tool—when needing a historical version on a specific date—and contrasts it with get_law_text via 'Same output shape as get_law_text'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like compare_versions or search_full_text.

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