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 It discloses a key behavioral trait: for repealed acts (IPC, CRPC, IEA), the result includes a note that it no longer applies to new cases and names the replacement. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth, or error behavior, but for a read-only lookup tool, the repealed-act note is the most important behavioral disclosure. A 4 is appropriate because it adds meaningful behavioral context but not exhaustive.

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 description is a single paragraph with a clear front-loaded orchestration instruction, then the purpose, then examples, then the repealed-act note. Every sentence earns its place. The orchestration instruction is somewhat verbose with the ALL-CAPS framing, but it is functional and not redundant. A 4 because it is efficient but slightly heavy on the instruction framing.

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 simple 2-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the prerequisite, the special case of repealed acts, and the Preamble case. It doesn't describe the return format, but with no output schema, that is a minor gap. The orchestration instruction and the repealed-act note make it complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. A 4 is appropriate.

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 both parameters with examples. The description adds the orchestration context (use after search_keyword) and the special case of '0' for Preamble, which is already in the schema. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the schema is already strong. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('exact text of ONE section or Constitution article'), and a clear scope ('by its number'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming search_keyword as the prerequisite and giving concrete examples ('BNS Section 103', 'IPC 302'). This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'AFTER you have found the exact section number via search_keyword, or if the user explicitly provided it.' It also gives examples of when someone would ask for a specific section. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_section_range, but the orchestration instruction and the 'ONE section' scope make the usage boundary clear. The condition is explicit and actionable.

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