law.usc-section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns citation, heading, hierarchy context, full text, Statutes-at-Large credit, OLRC link, and optionally amendment history via includeNotes. It also notes the data is 'Public-domain.' This provides adequate transparency about behavior and output, though it could be more explicit about its read-only nature.

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?

The description is highly concise (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds unique information: purpose, example, handling of special cases, return content, and usage advice. No wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists all key return fields (citation, heading, hierarchy text, etc.). It covers parameter details, special section formats, and the optional includeNotes flag. The tool is well-scoped for its purpose, with no apparent missing information for a standard query operation.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the title range (1-54), handling hyphenated/lettered sections (e.g., '1395w-4'), and clarifying that includeNotes adds editorial notes (amendment history, effective dates). This goes beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states it fetches authoritative text of a USC section by title and section number, with an example (title 17, section 107). It distinguishes from sibling law tools like case-search or cfr-section by specifying exactly what it retrieves (e.g., citation, heading, hierarchy).

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 advises to 'Verify statutory citations instead of relying on model memory,' indicating a primary use case for verification. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, the context among sibling tools implies this is specialized for USC sections.

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