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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses rich behavioral details: it returns the corresponding section number, amendment status values ('Retained', 'Change', 'Deleted', 'New Section', 'New Sub-Section'), a mapping statement, and both full statutory texts. It does not discuss error handling or confirm the operation is read-only, but the conversion nature and extensive return description provide strong transparency.

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-loads the core purpose and return values in the first sentence, followed by six compact examples that illustrate edge cases (deleted sections, new provisions). The examples are informative and earn their place, though the description is longer than strictly necessary.

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 adequately explains return values and amendment statuses, and the examples demonstrate typical and edge-case outputs. It is nearly complete for an agent to call correctly, though it omits behavior for invalid act/section inputs.

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 schema already documents act_code, section_number, and include_text. The description's examples reinforce valid act_code and section_number values but add no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (map/convert) and resource (criminal law sections) with clear scope: old IPC/CrPC/IEA to new BNS/BNSS/BSA in either direction. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_section by focusing on inter-code mapping rather than simple retrieval.

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?

Provides clear context through examples showing when to use it (e.g., converting an IPC section to its BNS equivalent, checking if a section was repealed). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_section or state when not to use this tool, keeping it below a 5.

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