get_erskine_may_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses that full text and footnotes are returned. It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or size limits. The 'Get' verb implies a read, but beyond that the disclosure is thin.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a pipe-delimited line, but 'full content' and 'Returns section with full text content' are redundant, and the Returns block duplicates what the output schema already provides. Half the text is repetition rather than added 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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are present, and the output schema covers the return shape. However, the description does not situate the tool in the Erskine May hierarchy (chapter → section → paragraph) enough for an agent to reliably pick it over sibling retrieval tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single parameter. It adds provenance meaning by stating the ID originates 'from chapter or navigation', which the schema does not convey, but it gives no format or valid-range guidance for the integer.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get full content of an Erskine May section', and identifies the content domain (procedure text, rules, precedents). The resource level is specific enough to distinguish it from get_erskine_may_chapter and get_erskine_may_paragraph, though it does not name those siblings.

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?

Offers implied usage ('Use to read the actual procedural content') and hints at the hierarchy by noting section_id comes 'from chapter or navigation'. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_erskine_may_section_relative or search_erskine_may_sections, and no exclusions.

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