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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful nuance: sections are from the latest snapshot and the tool returns an outline rather than full text. It omits error behavior, but the added context is meaningful.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. Purpose comes first, followed immediately by the node_id traversal examples, which are dense and directly useful.

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?

The tool has low complexity: one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description supplies the hierarchical traversal model and latest-snapshot caveat, leaving no call-critical information missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: null node_id lists titles, '31' lists articles, '31-16' lists chapters, and '31-16-15' lists sections. These concrete examples fully explain the optional 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?

Names the resource clearly as the Indiana Code outline and specifies the exact hierarchical levels returned: titles, articles, chapters, and sections. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as ic_get_section or ic_search, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Gives concrete node_id invocation patterns, but only describes traversal behavior rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives like ic_get_section or ic_search. The usage is implied by 'outline' rather than explicitly routed against siblings.

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