get_act_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the significant side effect: setting load_content=True loads the act's content into the Document Store, with a lifecycle (TTL 2h, expiration, reload required) that affects subsequent calls. It describes what the call returns and what it does not do (read content). For a read-oriented tool, this is strong disclosure, though it does not cover edge behaviors like error conditions or rate limits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose sentence, return-value list, prerequisite note, then usage guidance and examples. The five examples are somewhat repetitive but serve as practical invocation patterns. Nothing is wasted, though the load_content prerequisite is stated twice (once in prose, once in the guidance section), a minor redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no further explanation; the description covers what remains: when to use it, when not to, the prerequisite side effect of loading content, and example invocations for both parameters. An agent has everything needed to select and correctly call this tool across its use cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by providing five concrete usage examples with real ELI identifiers (DU/2024/1692, MP/2024/100) and by clarifying how load_content connects to downstream tools (read_act_content, search_in_act). This reinforces format understanding and invocation patterns beyond the raw parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Pobierz szczegółowe informacje o akcie prawnym') and enumerates exactly what is returned: metadata, title, status, dates, keywords, table of contents, and formats. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from read_act_content by clarifying that content loading is a separate prerequisite, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 contains explicit 'Kiedy użyć' and 'Kiedy NIE używać' sections, names the alternative tool (read_act_content) for the excluded case, and states the prerequisite relationship (load_content=True required before read_act_content and search_in_act). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance that makes tool selection reliable.

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