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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that output includes full text and that unsupported acts degrade to an informative message, but it omits pagination, response size, or rate-limit behavior for a potentially large chapter dump.

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 core purpose, then formats, then the edge case. The long list of act codes (BNS, BNSS, BSA, IPC...) is somewhat excessive and could be trimmed, but the structure remains efficient and each sentence adds usable information.

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 the return ('every section... with full text') and covers the notable exception case. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only finer details like output size or ordering.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by enumerating accepted chapter_number formats (Roman numeral, Arabic numeral, or title keywords) with concrete examples, which meaningfully expands on the schema's terse hint.

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 ('Get every section within one chapter (or Constitution Part) of an Act') and clarifies scope with 'full text.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_section, get_section_range, and get_full_act.

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: which acts are supported and the accepted query formats. It also discloses a boundary case (CPC and MVA return an informative message). It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling like get_section_range, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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