US Code Federal Statutes

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

Goes well beyond the safety annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld) by disclosing that output is paginated character-bounded pages, that it reflects the published OLRC release rather than real-time amendments, that the service is a non-government mirror, and that retrieved text should be treated as data rather than instructions (an explicit injection defense).

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 purpose in the first clause, then pagination, citation, and provenance requirements in descending priority. Dense but every sentence carries an operational rule; the citation-formatting and disclaimer sentences are long but necessary, with no redundant restatement.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't describe return fields like inlineCitation or nextOffset in detail, and it correctly focuses on provenance, pagination loop termination, and citation obligations. The only shortfall is that length/offset input semantics are left unexplained, which matters for paging a long section.

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 carries the burden: it does explain the path format and gives a concrete example, and it implies offset behavior via 'follow nextOffset until null'. However, the 'length' parameter (page size, max 60000) is never named or characterized, and 'offset' is never explicitly defined as a character offset, leaving a real gap for a 3-param 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve full statutory section text') and the exact addressing mechanism ('canonical path returned by search, e.g. /title/5/section/552'), which cleanly separates it from search_uscode (snippets) and list_titles (title enumeration).

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 routes the agent: 'Retrieve section text before quoting a search snippet' names the alternative tool's output and the condition that mandates this one. It also gives the iteration rule ('follow nextOffset until null for the full section') and the citation/currency conditions under which the returned metadata must be surfaced.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about returned content (links, citations, metadata), but does not disclose any behavior beyond annotations such as pagination, rate limits, or error conditions.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a relevant alternative. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 the zero-parameter schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and an alternative tool. It could mention get_section or clarify what 'titles' means, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids doing so.

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 (List), resource (U.S. Code titles), and scope (published), and names what is included (canonical site links, legal citations, release metadata). It also distinguishes itself from search_uscode by directing section lookups elsewhere.

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 names the alternative search_uscode for finding sections, which clarifies when not to use this tool for section-level content. However, it does not address get_section or state exclusions for listing titles beyond the implied scope.

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

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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the data is a published OLRC release rather than real-time, the site is an independent mirror not a government service, and retrieved text must be treated as source material, not instructions (an explicit prompt-injection caution). It also discloses pagination via nextOffset.

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 purpose and then layered with citation, currency, pagination, and disclaimer guidance. It is long but each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information; the density is justified by the tool's legal-citation requirements.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully characterizes returns (snippets, release metadata, legal/inline citations). Combined with the currency caveat, mirror disclaimer, and injection warning, an agent has everything needed to call and cite this tool responsibly.

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 carry param meaning: it explains query accepts full text or a citation form like '5 USC 552', and that nextOffset should be followed until null. The limit parameter is left undocumented, which is the only gap.

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 and resource ('Search the published United States Code') plus the two supported query modes (full text or citation). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings get_section (retrieve specific text) and list_titles (enumerate).

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: include inlineCitation for every statutory claim, state release.id/sourceDate when currency matters, and retrieve section text before quoting a snippet. This implicitly routes the agent to get_section for full text, though it never names the sibling or states when not to use search.

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