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

The description explains the return format (frontmatter, verbatim text, notes), the effect of the `version` and `subsection` parameters, and the 404 behavior naming neighboring sections. There is no contradiction with the read-only, idempotent annotations.

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 brief, but uses odd phrasing such as 'the twin site serves' and 'notes capped', which can obscure rather than clarify. It is not overly long, but the cryptic style hurts readability.

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 lookup tool, the description covers the main resource, parameters, return content, and error behavior. However, the unclear phrasing and lack of explicit usage scenarios leave some gaps in what an agent needs to confidently invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must carry the explanatory load. It does explain `version` and `subsection`, but the primary `citation` parameter is left undescribed, and no format or example is provided for any parameter.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a single Code section retrieved by citation, and contrasts with the plural sibling `code_lookup_sections`. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'look up' or 'retrieve', relying on the noun phrase 'One Code section by citation'.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The singular/plural contrast with `code_lookup_sections` is implied but never stated directly, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection.

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