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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read operation, so the safety burden is off the description. The description still adds behavioral value by disclosing that the response includes the transitional rule alongside the mapping, which goes beyond what annotations say. It stops short of describing behavior for unmatched/invalid sections.

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 verb and resource are front-loaded and the enumeration of the three law pairs is necessary for precision, not padding. The single long sentence is dense and slightly overloaded, but every clause carries meaning.

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 two-parameter lookup with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the agent has the source law set, target law set, example query, and a note that the transitional rule is returned. The only shared gap, error behavior for invalid sections, is minor.

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%, so the enum values and example section formats ('420', 'Section 498A', '167(2)') are already documented in the schema. The description corroborates the code pairs but adds no syntax guidance beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (maps) and resource set (repealed criminal law sections to their 2023 successors) and enumerates both the source codes (IPC/CrPC/IEA) and target codes (BNS/BNSS/BSA). This clearly distinguishes it from a generic bare-act lookup, since the tool is explicitly about repealed-to-new-code conversion.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Use for IPC-to-BNS, CrPC-to-BNSS and Evidence Act-to-BSA conversion questions') and gives a concrete example query. It does not name sibling alternatives such as lookup_bare_act_section or search_bare_acts, or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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