get_amendments

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

Discloses that it returns footnotes with amending act name and original text, filtering options, and cost of 1 credit. No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden well.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, followed by details and usage note. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers key aspects: content, filtering, and cost. No gaps for a query tool.

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?

Adds value beyond schema by describing filter options and what each footnote contains. Schema coverage is 80%, and description compensates effectively.

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 it retrieves the complete amendment history for an Indian act, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on US statutes or current text.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to trace how a statute evolved', providing clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined.

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