get_act_of_parliament

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discharges almost none of it: no indication of error behavior for an unknown ID, no permission/auth requirements, no note on whether the returned detail set is stable. 'Returns Act details' is a restatement, not disclosure.

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 same idea is restated four times across the description ('Get Act details', 'Get full details of an Act of Parliament', 'Returns Act details', 'Full Act details') against a one-line tool. Keyword-stuffing for search rather than front-loaded 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema that already defines return values, the description plus schema cover the mechanics adequately. It is still missing sibling routing and error semantics, but those are not fatal here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does partially, telling the agent the act_id is an 'alphanumeric string from search results', which supplies both format and provenance. It stops short of a format example or a pointer to the exact search tool that yields it.

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 and resource ('Get full details of an Act of Parliament'), so the agent knows it retrieves a single Act by ID. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_acts_of_parliament, leaving the agent to infer the lookup-vs-search split.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling search tool that produces the act_id. The only hint is the parenthetical '(alphanumeric string from search results)', which implies a search-then-fetch flow but never states it.

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