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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the retrieval granularity (one section, full text) and no auth, rate-limit, or not-found behavior, which is acceptable but modest given an output schema is also present.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope, and the triggering condition, then illustrates with two concrete pairs. No filler and nothing buried.

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 lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps (behavior when a section is not found, exact identifier normalization) are tolerable given the output schema exists.

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% and both parameters already document accepted formats and examples ('PPC', 'CrPC', '489-F'). The examples in the description ('PPC'/'392', 'Constitution'/'199') largely restate 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 (return) and resource (full text of one section/article of a Pakistani law) with concrete examples of the act/section pairings. The precondition 'when the act and number are known' implicitly separates it from search_statutes, which is the sibling an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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 a clear precondition for use ('when the act and number are known'), which tells the agent to reach for a search tool when the citation is unknown. It does not name search_statutes as the alternative or state what happens on a miss, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not rule.

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