law.cfr-section

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the data is public-domain and updated daily, and notes the optional historical retrieval scope (back to 2017). Does not mention potential rate limits or side effects, but as a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds essential information: what it does, example, optional parameter, return fields, data quality. Very efficient.

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 no output schema, the description lists all returned fields (citation, heading, plain text, source credit, eCFR link), explains the optional historical date with range, and notes data freshness and legality. An agent has sufficient information to invoke correctly.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds marginal value through an example (title 17, section 240.10b-5) but does not provide new semantic details beyond what schema already offers. 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?

Description clearly states it fetches a US CFR section by title and section number with an example. The tool name and context distinguish it from sibling tools like law.usc-section (US Code) and law.federal-register. No confusion.

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?

Provides clear context: use for authoritative CFR full text, with optional historical date. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the specificity of 'Code of Federal Regulations' and example strongly guides appropriate use.

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