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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that output is full text and that unsupported acts yield a clear message rather than empty data, which prevents misinterpretation. It stops short of describing the return shape or ordering, minor gaps for a read-only tool.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the fallback caveat immediately after. Everything earns its place.

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 output schema, the description covers purpose, valid inputs, and failure behavior sufficiently. Only the exact return structure/ordering is unspecified, which is a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by constraining the act_code domain to six valid codes and by implying chapter_number is an Act-specific chapter identifier. That is useful guidance the schema examples ('BNS', '1') alone don't convey.

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 and resource ('Get every section within one chapter of an Act') plus scope ('with full text'). The chapter-level granularity cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_section, get_section_range, and get_full_act without needing to name them.

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 enumerates the acts where the tool is meaningful (BNS, BNSS, BSA, IPC, CRPC, IEA) and the acts where it is not (CPC, MVA, COI), with the fallback behavior defined. This is a genuine when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement.

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