lt_list_amendments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are keyed to the provisions actually changed, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, pagination, or behavior when an act has no amendments.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and the returned payload front-loaded. No filler, no restatement of the title or name.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations plus full schema coverage carry the rest. What remains thin is the temporal dimension: the description does not tie its results to the date-parameterized consolidated edition, which is the one conceptual gap for a legally-versioned listing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the tar_kodas example format and the date parameter's 'edition in force that day' semantics documented in the schema itself. The description's phrase 'amended an act' loosely maps to tar_kodas but adds no syntax, default, or interaction 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 ('List') and a specific resource ('acts that amended an act'), plus the payload each entry carries (which provisions changed). An agent can distinguish this from lt_list_editions or lt_get_act without opening a schema, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 only implied: the phrasing 'amended an act' signals that an act identifier is required, which matches the single required tar_kodas parameter. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to an alternative such as lt_get_act when the agent instead wants the text of the amendments.

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