eqanun_akt

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only names the returned content. It says nothing about read-only semantics (implied but unstated), authentication, rate limits, or failure behavior when a framework_id is unknown.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the resource attribute list leads. The bilingual duplication adds length without adding information for a non-Turkic reader, which is the only minor cost.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the source and a rough sense of the return, which is roughly adequate. It still leaves the identifier's origin and the shape of the returned act details unspecified, so it is minimum-viable rather than complete.

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 0% and the description never explains the single required parameter framework_id — not its meaning, format, or where to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource (a legal act) and the attributes returned (details and legal status) from a named source (e-qanun.az), so the agent knows this fetches an act record. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sub-unit siblings (eqanun_madde, eqanun_bend) or the search sibling (eqanun_axtar), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, even though the sibling set contains near-collisions (article, clause, search). Usage is only weakly implied by the tool name, and an agent could easily confuse it with eqanun_madde or eqanun_bend.

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