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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does signal that the return is complete text rather than a summary and pins the edition (2026), but says nothing about read-only nature, output format, size, or error behavior for invalid appendix numbers.

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 action, and the enumeration of appendices earns its space by doubling as scope documentation. Dense but with no filler.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description covers purpose and valid values well. It is slightly thin on return format and failure behavior, but an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what each accepted value ('I', 'II', 'III') actually refers to (100th Amendment/Land Boundary Agreement, J&K Order 2019/C.O. 272, Article 370(3) Declaration). That mapping genuinely helps an agent pick the right value.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the full text of an Appendix to the Constitution of India') and enumerates exactly what the three appendices contain, making scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the neighboring list_constitution_appendices or get_constitution_schedule tools, so sibling differentiation is implied ('full text' vs. listing) rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch the appendix body given a number. There is no explicit statement of when to use this rather than list_constitution_appendices or get_constitution_schedule, and no preconditions (e.g., call the list tool first) are mentioned. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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