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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose notable behavior: repealed acts (IPC, CRPC, IEA) return a note that they no longer apply to new cases along with their replacement, and section_number='0' returns the Preamble. It does not describe output shape, pagination, or behavior when a section number is not found.

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 prerequisite is front-loaded in a bracketed orchestration note, followed by the core action and examples. The ALL-CAPS bracketed preamble is slightly heavy for the payload, but every sentence contributes usage or behavioral 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers prerequisites, special cases (Preamble, repealed acts), and trigger scenarios adequately. It could say more about not-found behavior, but an agent has what it needs to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters already have documented formats and examples. The description reinforces semantics by tying act_code to real acts (BNS, IPC, COI) and restating the '0'/Preamble convention, but adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the exact text of ONE section or Constitution article by number. It is clearly distinguished from siblings that handle ranges (get_section_range), keyword lookup (search_keyword), and cross-act mapping (convert_section).

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 states the prerequisite sequencing — use only after search_keyword has surfaced the exact section number, or when the user supplied it. It also gives concrete trigger phrasing ('what does BNS Section 103 say', 'show me IPC 302'), leaving nothing to inference.

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