compare_acts

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

Discloses that no prior loading of content is needed (load_content). Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately indicates the read-only nature. Could mention that it identifies differences and common elements, but that's already described.

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?

Well-structured with a summary, detailed comparison fields, usage guidelines, and examples. Slightly lengthy but each sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 two parameters, full schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and provides examples. No gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description adds minimal extra meaning (only examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already explains the ELI identifier format.

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 compares metadata (titles, types, statuses, dates, keywords) of two legal acts. It distinguishes from siblings like read_act_content, which handles content comparison, and browse_acts, which is for browsing.

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 (comparing metadata of two acts) and when not to use (comparing content, directing to load_content + read_act_content). Provides multiple examples covering different scenarios.

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