it_get_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, authentication, or specifics about what 'metadata' includes). It doesn't contradict annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does. Every word is necessary and there is no fluff.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for a simple metadata-fetching tool. It might benefit from mentioning that 'act metadata' excludes full legal text, but the tool name and sibling context help fill that gap.

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 single parameter 'reference' has a schema description that covers 100% of the parameter, listing four accepted formats. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the schema carries the weight. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch act metadata from Normattiva.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like it_get_text (which likely fetches full text) and it_list_codes (which lists codes). The scope is precisely defined.

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 context: use this tool when you need act metadata from Normattiva, as opposed to full text or other related services. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the clear 'act metadata' framing gives sufficient guidance.

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