my_get_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns metadata specifically, distinguishing it from text retrieval, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authorization, or error handling.

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 clear sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without any fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is functionally complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that gap. Some information about when to use vs. the sibling would improve completeness, but it's not essential for a tool this simple.

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 schema already covers act_number fully as an integer with an example, giving 100% schema description coverage. The phrase 'numeric act coordinate' in the description is essentially a synonym for the schema's type and example, adding no significant new meaning. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches metadata for Malaysian principal Acts using a numeric act coordinate. It differentiates from the sibling 'my_get_text' by specifying 'metadata' rather than text, but it does not explicitly reference the sibling or contrast them.

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 when to use this tool (when needing metadata for a Malaysian act) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives like 'my_get_text' or exclusions. The 'metadata' keyword hints at the distinction, but explicit when/when-not guidance is absent.

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