lt_find_rulings_on_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: how KT titles are matched (current and former act titles, or date+number for subordinate acts) and that include_outcomes fetches full texts and parses the operative part. It stops short of saying what happens on zero matches or how results are ordered.

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 lead sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second paragraph carries the matching/outcome detail. It is dense with domain shorthand ('KT titles', 'operative part') that assumes Lithuanian constitutional-law familiarity, but no sentence is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description still explains what 'outcome' contains. The matching heuristic and the slower-path flag are covered. Remaining gaps (empty-result behavior, ordering, limit interaction) are minor for a read-only lookup 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an increment by explaining that provision narrows to a single article and that include_outcomes causes the operative part to be read into 'outcome' plus the mentioning items. The matching rule for tar_kodas (date and number for subordinate acts) also adds meaning beyond the example value in the schema.

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+resource: find Constitutional Court rulings concerning a given act, optionally narrowed to one provision, and return their outcome. The parenthetical about KT title matching further pins down the resource being matched. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling lt_search_court_rulings, so an agent must infer the difference from the 'on a given act' framing.

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?

Usage is implied by the input shape: supply a tar_kodas (and optionally a provision) when you want rulings tied to a specific act. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to lt_search_court_rulings for free-text ruling search. The include_outcomes tradeoff ('slower') is the only cost/benefit guidance offered.

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