lookup_public_act

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful disclosure: the return contents and the 'when known' hedge, which warns that effective date / citations may be absent. It says nothing about permissions, determinism, or whether a missing act yields an error vs. an empty result, so meaningful gaps remain.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the example folded in parenthetically and no wasted words. Every clause earns its place by either naming the resource or describing the payload.

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 two-param lookup with an output schema (so return shape needn't be restated) this is nearly complete: purpose, inputs, and expected data gaps are all covered. The missing pieces are valid-parameter ranges and a routing rule to the 'search' sibling, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. The example 'year 1931, number 328' usefully clarifies that both parameters are integers identifying a public act and its year. It does not define valid ranges, accepted formats, or edge cases for either parameter, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Look up') and a specific resource ('a Public Act'), and even enumerates what the caller gets back (title, effective date, citations). It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like 'search' and 'get_document' by its year+number identification model. It stops short of a 5 only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 inline example ('year 1931, number 328') implies the usage pattern: call this when you already know a public act's year and number. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to the 'search' sibling for the case where only a topical query is available. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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