browse_acts

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

Discloses default result limit (max 20), result set saving, and combinations with filter_results. However, no annotations exist, and it does not clarify if repeated calls overwrite or append result sets. Still, it provides reasonable behavioral insight for a non-destructive browse.

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?

Structured with bullet points, clearly separated usage guidelines and examples. Every sentence serves a purpose; no fluff. Concise yet comprehensive.

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?

All 4 parameters are covered with examples and cross-tool integration. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Complete for a browsing tool with sibling tools for search and filtering.

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 is 100% with descriptions. The description adds value through concrete examples (publisher codes, years, detail_level variants) and explains the result_set_id relationship, which is not in the schema.

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 browses all legal acts by publisher and year, using specific Polish terms. It distinguishes from siblings like search_legal_acts (keyword search) and filter_results (narrowing), providing a unique purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (browsing an entire year's acts without filtering) and when not to use (keyword search, directing to search_legal_acts). Also mentions saving results to a result set for further filtering with filter_results.

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