my_get_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the source (extracted from official PDF) and the scope (principal Act), but does not disclose limitations such as whether 'full text' includes schedules or what happens for unavailable acts. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the essential purpose and source efficiently. No filler or repetition of annotations/schema.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema provided, good annotations). The description is adequate as a minimal viable explanation, but it omits usage context (e.g., when to choose this over my_get_act) and does not clarify what 'full text' encompasses. Given the availability of output schema and annotations, this is a clear but not exhaustive description.

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 provides only an example ('e.g. ``883``') for the act_number parameter, not a semantic definition. The description's mention of 'Malaysian principal Act' implicitly clarifies that act_number refers to the act's number, adding meaning beyond the schema. This helps an agent understand how to fill the parameter.

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') and identifies a clear resource ('full text of a Malaysian principal Act'), which gives a precise purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool my_get_act, but the name and description imply a focus on text content rather than the act object itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling my_get_act, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and description alone.

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