ch_get_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. Description adds context about fetching full detail and the source (Fedlex ELI URI). No contradiction; no additional behavioral traits needed beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. Every element is purposeful.

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?

Given simple tool with 2 parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. Could mention output schema existence, but not required.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description reinforces 'uri' by mentioning 'by its Fedlex ELI URI', but provides no extra semantic for 'lang'. Minimal added value over 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?

Description clearly specifies verb 'Fetch', resource 'full detail for one Swiss federal act', and method 'by its Fedlex ELI URI'. It distinguishes from sibling ch_search_acts which presumably searches for acts, while this retrieves a specific one.

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?

Description implies usage context: when you have a Fedlex ELI URI and need full details. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the sibling ch_search_acts provides a natural alternative for search scenarios.

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