search_acts

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that errors return 'upstream_error', which provides behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions between description and 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 concise, with key information front-loaded. It covers purpose, source, coverage, and filters in a few sentences. However, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) for quick scanning.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, source, coverage, and filters. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of acts with fields), which is important for a search tool. Missing information on pagination or default limit behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description lists filters but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. For high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Wyszukiwanie' (search) and the resource 'aktow prawa polskiego' (Polish legal acts). It specifies the source (Sejm ELI API) and coverage (96,000+ acts since 1918), and lists filters. It distinguishes from siblings 'get_act' and 'get_act_text' which are retrieval tools.

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 mentions filters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied through filter descriptions but no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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