ie_get_act

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description does not add any behavioral traits beyond these, but it does not contradict them either. No extra context on rate limits, errors, or authentication is given.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

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 the comprehensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the tool's purpose and usage. No additional details are necessary for this simple metadata retrieval 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 100% parameter description coverage, with clear explanations for year, number, and doc_type. The description's phrase 'by coordinates' adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'Irish act / SI metadata', and the method 'by coordinates'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'ie_get_text', which likely retrieves the full text, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for metadata retrieval by coordinates, and the sibling tool name suggests an alternative for text. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling, nor any conditions or prerequisites (e.g., valid year/number range).

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