hr_get_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and not destructive. The description adds that this returns 'metadata' rather than the full text, which is a behavioral distinction beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with zero wasted words.

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 simple 3-parameter metadata fetch with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description provides enough context. It clarifies the domain (ELI) and the distinction between metadata and text, making the tool complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions and examples for all three parameters. The description merely restates them as 'year + issue + doc' without adding any extra meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the resource ('document metadata'), and specifies the unique identifier type ('ELI coordinate'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hr_get_text (which retrieves text) and hr_list_issue (which lists issues).

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 the tool is for retrieving metadata by a precise coordinate, contrasting with siblings that handle listing or text retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or call out exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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