sk_get_act

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

The description's 'Fetch' aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and it adds no extra behavioral context beyond the purpose. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description earns the baseline score for not contradicting 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no wasted wording, making it easy to parse and appropriately sized.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly identifies what the tool does and how to target an act; return details are covered by the output schema.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, with each parameter having example descriptions. The description merely restates 'by year and number' without adding semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it gets the baseline of 3.

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' with a clear resource 'Slovak act metadata' and specifies the lookup keys 'by year and number'. This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like sk_get_text (text) and sk_get_versions (versions), even though alternatives are not named.

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: when you need metadata for a Slovak act and know the year and number. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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