law.usc-section

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

Discloses return fields (citation, heading, hierarchy, full text, source credit, OLRC link) and the effect of includeNotes. No annotations exist, so description adequately covers behavior for a read-only tool. Missing error or limitation disclosure, but sufficient for this simple operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, input format, optional feature, and return contents. No gaps for agent decision-making.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining section parameter handles hyphenated/lettered sections and that includeNotes adds amendment history, going beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it fetches authoritative US Code section text, with specific example (title 17, section 107) and distinguishes from sibling tools like law.case-search and law.cfr-section by focusing on statutory code.

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?

Implicitly guides use for verifying statutory citations instead of relying on model memory, and the context of sibling tools helps differentiate. However, no explicit 'do not use' statements for alternatives.

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