acta_query

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

The description indicates this is a read-only browsing tool, which is appropriate for a query tool. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. It is adequate but lacks deeper context.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the three operations without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the overall purpose and then lists the specific actions, making it easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description covers the three main actions and mentions 'with its responses' for entry lookup. It adequately explains the parameters via the schema. However, it could mention result limitations or sorting, but is otherwise complete for the given complexity.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters with their respective actions (e.g., q for list_topics, topic for feed, entry_id for entry), clarifying which parameters are used when, which is more than what the schema provides.

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 is for browsing the Acta public record, with three specific operations: list topics, get entries for a topic, and look up a single entry. It distinguishes from siblings like acta_contribute and acta_respond which are for writing, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 lists the three main use cases (listing topics, getting entries, looking up an entry) and implicitly indicates this is a read-only tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools or when not to use it, which is clear from sibling names but not stated.

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