Look up an ACP

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the burden is lighter. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the full text is returned truncated, and the tool works offline. No contradiction with annotations, and no misleading mutation claims.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and query method, then packs the return fields and the offline behavior. Zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-required-parameter lookup tool whose safety profile is already carried by annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it specifies the query key, enumerates the returned fields, and notes truncation. Minor gaps remain (no-results behavior, truncation length, full_text semantics), but they don't block correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50% — the query param is described with examples ('77', 'ACP-176', 'reinventing subnets'), which covers query semantics well. The description reinforces this ('by number or title keyword'). However, the full_text boolean has no schema description and is only implied in the description via 'full text (truncated)'; its default and effect on the response are not explained, so the 50% coverage gap is only partially compensated.

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 states a specific verb ('Get one ACP') and resource, and clarifies the lookup key ('by number or title keyword'). It also enumerates the returned fields (preamble, abstract, full text). It doesn't name siblings, but 'Get one' implicitly contrasts with the avax_acp_list sibling, which is enough to orient an agent.

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 it — when you have a specific ACP number or title keyword — since it returns one record. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or which sibling to prefer (e.g., avax_acp_list for listing all, avax_search_docs for broader doc search). The 'Offline' note hints at a distinguishing use case but doesn't connect it to a live alternative like avax_fetch_live_doc.

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