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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds real substance beyond that: curated provenance ('firm's annotated bare-acts library, reproduced from the enacted Act'), explicit coverage boundaries, and the hedge 'where recorded', which signals that optional fields may be absent. It does not say what happens when a section is not found in the dataset.

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, which is correct, but the parenthetical list of all 20 Acts is a near-verbatim duplication of the enum already in the schema and consumes roughly half the text. The remaining sentence is efficient; the act inventory does not earn its space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does so field-by-field (section text, explanation, practitioner note, penalty, cross-code section, amendment history). Combined with the 100%-covered input schema this is nearly complete; the only omission is not-found/empty-result behavior for a cited section outside the 20 Acts.

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%: both parameters and every enum value are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the Act coverage list without adding format or syntax beyond the enum, and adds only the minor note that BNS/BNSS enacted headings are available. No extra meaning for the 'section' parameter beyond the schema 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Returns a section of an Indian Act') with an unusually concrete enumeration of the payload: section text, plain-English explanation, practitioner note, penalty, old/new-code section, amendment history. The scope is clearly bounded (a single cited section, 20 named Acts). It stops short of naming the siblings it must be distinguished from (search_bare_acts, map_old_code_section), so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 closing line 'Use when a user cites or asks about a specific section or article' gives a clear triggering condition. However, there are no exclusions or alternative routing, even though map_old_code_section (which this tool partly duplicates by returning the corresponding old/new-code section) and search_bare_acts are obvious near-neighbours that the agent must choose between.

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