in_force_on

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the set is computed at query time from validity intervals, deduplicates by work, and carries a mandatory population disclosure. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or safety profile, though the read-only nature is implied.

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 no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the key behavioral nuances in a compact format.

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 query tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core behavior, including deduplication and the mandatory population disclosure. It doesn't detail the response shape, but that is not required when no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear.

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 already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details but sets the context that the 'date' parameter is central. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool's function: it returns the set of works in force on a date, computed from validity intervals and deduplicated by work. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like 'as_of' or 'timeline' which deal with different temporal queries.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage is implied by the semantics: if you need works active on a specific date, this is the tool, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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