read_act_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well. It discloses the crucial precondition, the branching behavior when section is omitted or present, and flexible optional section matching (raw IDs or readable forms). It could go further by explicitly describing failure behavior when the act isn't loaded or a section isn't found, but it is still well above the minimal achievable.

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 organized first with a clear one-sentence purpose, then decisive blocks: WYMAGANIE, Kiedy użyć, and Kiedy NIE use. The examples are compact and practical, and no sentence feels wasted.

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 that there are no annotations but the schema is rich and an output schema is present, the description is effectively complete. It covers a precondition, differentiation from siblings, return behavior, optional section semantics, and multiple invocation examples, allowing an agent to select and call the tool without ambiguity.

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 description/question_complete_coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains eli format, section forms, limit/offset behavior, and section meaning. The description adds concrete examples and contextual use, but the semantic load is already primarily carried by the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Czytaj treść załadowanego aktu prawnego po sekcjach'. It also defines the two output modes (spis treści without section, szkż section content with section), and clearly differentiates the tool from get_act_details for metadata.

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 provides an explicit precondition: the act must first be loaded via get_act_details(eli=..., load_content=True). It also includes explicit 'Kiedy użyć' and 'Kiedy NIE używać' guidance, naming get_act_details as the alternative for metadata retrieval.

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