get_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'complete metadata', which clarifies the output scope, but does not disclose details about error behavior or edge cases. This is adequate but not rich contextual addition.

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 short sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second provides usage distinction. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, read-only annotations), the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and clearly contrasts with reading articles. No additional information seems necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema only provides the parameter name 'act_code' with type string and no description. The description compensates by stating the text is 'identifié par son code', directly clarifying that the parameter is the code of the legal text. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema, though it does not provide format examples.

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 tool returns complete metadata for an OHADA legal text identified by its code, using the specific verb 'Retourne' and resource 'métadonnées complètes d'un texte OHADA'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from reading article content, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_article.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'À utiliser pour une question portant sur l'acte lui-même, pas pour lire un article.' This gives a clear when-to-use condition and an explicit exclusion, directing the agent away from using this tool for article reading.

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