de_get_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, rate limits, or behavior on missing ELI, but it does not contradict annotations either. Since annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds no extra value beyond 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence: 'Fetch act metadata from NeuRIS by ELI.' It is front-loaded with the core action and object, contains zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only, has an output schema), and the description covers its essential purpose. However, it lacks any usage guidance or sibling differentiation, which is critical given the large list of sibling tools. While not seriously incomplete for a straightforward retrieval, the missing context for tool selection prevents a higher score.

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?

The schema provides a thorough description of the 'eli' parameter, including an example and accepted formats (API path or work-level ELI). The description simply says 'by ELI' without adding any new meaning. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 is correct – the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action (fetch), the object (act metadata), the source (NeuRIS), and the key (by ELI). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like de_get_text or de_get_decision, which might also deal with acts. Thus it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer de_get_text for full text or de_search for searching. The description offers no context about preconditions or selection criteria, so an agent receives no direction on tool choice.

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