es_get_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the key behavioral distinction that this tool returns 'metadata' (not the full legal text), which sets expectations for what the agent receives. It does not describe error handling or return format, but the output schema exists, so the description need not cover those.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It immediately states the verb and object, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 a simple read-only lookup by ID. The description clearly states the purpose and scope, the schema documents the parameter, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. There are no complex side effects or hidden requirements, so the description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema has one parameter (boe_id) with a clear example (e.g., 'BOE-A-2018-16673'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description only says 'by id', which adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 is precise: 'Fetch consolidated-law metadata from BOE by id.' It specifies a clear verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('consolidated-law metadata from BOE'), and a lookup method ('by id'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like es_get_text (which likely retrieves full text) and es_browse_gazette (which likely browses the gazette).

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?

The description implies that the tool should be used when you have a BOE identifier and need metadata for a consolidated law, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives (e.g., 'for full text, use es_get_text'). There are no stated exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance remains implicit.

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