Read the current text of an act

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: default table of sections, section-specific provision retrieval, and paginated full-text mode. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 tool is simple and well-annotated, and the description covers default behavior, section mode, and full-text mode. Minor gap: the page parameter's semantics are only implied by 'paginated' and not explicitly tied to request/response mechanics.

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 covers 75% of parameters but leaves 'page' undocumented. The description explains the interplay of section and full parameters, and 'paginated' hints at the page parameter's purpose, adding value 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('the latest compilation of a Commonwealth act or instrument'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_law_as_at by emphasizing 'latest' and from search tools by describing structured text retrieval.

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 clearly implies this is for current text retrieval, not historical or as-at versions, by saying 'latest compilation.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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