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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. In the absence of an output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the payload contents (paragraphs, part/subpart, inbound and outbound references, Federal Register rules). It does not say what happens when a section number is invalid or not found, which is the remaining gap.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then the payload, followed by a short citation directive. Nothing is wasted, though the opening fragment ('One FAR or DFARS section's full text') reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement of action.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does so thoroughly for a read-one-entity tool, plus it supplies the citation format including the as-of date. Missing only error/not-found behavior and any note on size limits for very long sections.

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 100% and the single 'section' parameter already documents its format with three concrete examples, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies for a fully documented one-parameter tool.

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 names a specific resource — 'One FAR or DFARS section's full text' — and enumerates what comes with it (part, subpart, references, Federal Register rules), which clearly separates it from sibling search tools like search_far. It lacks an explicit contrast sentence naming those siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Use is implied by 'One ... section' — that is, use this when you already know the section number, and use search_far otherwise — but the description never states this or names the alternative. The only explicit usage instruction is the citation convention ('Cite it as FAR <section> ... with the as-of date'), which is genuinely useful but about output handling rather than tool selection.

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