cms_bdlaws_act

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this returns a link plus metadata from an external government registry (implying a read-only lookup), which is useful, but says nothing about lookup failure when an act is unregistered, freshness/caching, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the action, the return value, and the source. The trailing 'Tier 2 mandatory statutory floor' parenthetical is the only low-value fragment.

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 one-optional-param lookup with no output schema, the description identifies what is returned ('link and metadata') but never enumerates the metadata fields or states behavior when no act matches. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the sole parameter already has an example-driven description (Labour, Companies, VAT). The description adds no extra semantics about the name filter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: return the official Bangladesh law link and metadata for registered acts/rules, naming the authoritative source domain. This is clearly distinct from the sibling compliance/assessment tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any one of them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as cms_search_policy or cms_risk_lookup. The phrase 'Tier 2 mandatory statutory floor' hints at a compliance-registration context but is unexplained jargon rather than actionable usage guidance.

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