Get an entire Part

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It states the output (full text of every regulation) and parameter range, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error behavior (e.g., non-existent part). Since it is a read operation, the lack of destructive hints is acceptable, but more detail on output format would be helpful.

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?

Single sentence, no filler. Front-loaded with verb and resource, immediately understandable. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the valid input range. It could optionally hint at the output format (e.g., concatenated text), but completeness is high enough for effective use.

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% with one integer parameter (number, 1-7). The description merely restates the range ('Part (1–7)'), adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it returns the full text of every regulation within a Part (1–7) of a specific regulation set. The verb 'return' and resource 'full text of every regulation within a Part' are specific, and the tool is distinctly different from siblings like get_regulation (which returns a single regulation) or get_definition.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_regulation or list_regulations. The description implies usage for retrieving all regulations in a Part, but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention prerequisites (e.g., knowing the Part number).

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