get_act

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the non-obvious state inference behavior, gives a concrete example, and explains when to override it. It could add more about pagination or errors, but the core behavior is clear and consistent.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first gives the action, and the second paragraph clarifies an important optional parameter behavior without filler.

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 simple two-parameter fetch with an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the ordering, and the state inference rule. It does not explicitly point to search_legislation for broader search use cases, but that is a minor gap given the get-by-id nature of the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for state, explaining that it is optional, inferred from act_id, and overridable. The required act_id is only illustrated via example rather than formally described, but the example makes its structure sufficiently inferable.

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: 'Fetch every section of one Act, in section order.' It clearly names the scope (every section), the resource (one Act), and the ordering, and it is readily distinguishable from sibling search tools like search_legislation.

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 first sentence gives clear context: use this when you need all sections of a specific Act in order. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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