law.cfr-section

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses return fields (citation, heading, plain text, etc.), public-domain status, and daily updates. No destructive actions mentioned; seems fully transparent.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with key action and resource. Every word adds value.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, optional date, return values, and data source. It is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, but description adds value by providing example format for 'section' (e.g., 240.10b-5) and clarifying date format and range (yyyy-mm-dd, back to 2017). This exceeds baseline of 3.

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 the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'CFR section', and the key identifiers (title and section number). It distinguishes from siblings like 'law.usc-section' by specifying 'CFR'.

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?

Description explains when to use (to fetch CFR text) and mentions optional date for historical queries. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the unique resource (CFR) combined with sibling tool names provides clear context.

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