Find an act or regulation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: exact title matches are ordered first, BC acts carry current/repealed status, and federal results omit repeal status. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then return shape, and every clause carries information (field list, citation formats, ordering, repeal caveat). Some sentences are dense and run long, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden: it lists act_id, title, citation, source_url and currency status, plus ordering and the federal repeal caveat. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 100% and already documents both parameters including the enum and the 'abbreviations not recognised' caveat. The description only restates 'by title', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find acts and regulations by title') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what a call yields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_law, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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?

Gives clear downstream routing: 'pass it to get_toc and get_section', and warns that federal titles don't mark repealed acts so those tools should be consulted. It never states when to prefer this over search_law or map_term, so no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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