dms_bdlaws_act

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

The description states what the tool returns (link and metadata) and that it covers exactly 20 acts, which is good behavioral disclosure. Since there are no annotations, the description serves as the primary source of behavioral information. It could be improved by noting if there are any side effects or network dependencies, but the core behavior is clear.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the key action ('Return') and specifies the exact scope and source. Every part of the sentence is necessary and informative, with no wasted words.

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 tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining the tool's purpose and return value. It covers what it returns (link, metadata) and the scope (20 acts from bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning if the tool enforces exact name matching or supports partial names.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with a single optional parameter 'name' that is already described as 'Optional act name filter'. The description adds context by listing example values (Labour, Companies, VAT) that help the agent understand acceptable inputs. With high schema coverage, the description contributes additional meaningful examples.

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'official Bangladesh law link and metadata', and uniquely identifies it as covering the specific set of 20 core business/corporate acts. This distinct focus on Bangladesh law acts differentiates it from sibling tools like dms_search or dms_fetch.

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 implies this tool is specifically for Bangladesh corporate/business acts, providing clear context for when to use it (e.g., retrieving the Companies Act, Labour Act). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the narrow scope and optional filter give strong implicit guidance.

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