list_acts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral signal, that results carry provenance (consolidation) and freshness (last fetched), enabling currency judgments. It says nothing about result volume or whether the whole corpus is returned in one call, which is the remaining behavioral unknown for a zero-parameter enumeration.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the payload, the second defines the decision it supports. The content is front-loaded and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that documents the returned fields, the description carries only the burden of stating purpose and trigger, which it does. The one gap is scale: an agent cannot tell whether this returns the entire corpus at once or a truncated listing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that do not exist.

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 enumerates exactly what the call returns per act: size, source consolidation, and last-fetched date, which combined with the name makes the resource and operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_law or outline, so sibling differentiation is left to inference from the noun 'each act'.

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?

'Check this when an answer needs to state how current the law text is' gives a concrete triggering condition tied to a user-facing need, which is stronger than generic 'use this to list' guidance. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or pointing to search_law/find_exact as the alternative for content lookup.

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