Read a section of a code

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are in reading order and long sections are chunked with an offset continuation protocol. It does not mention limits or what happens at the end of content, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return content and followed by the one operational rule that matters. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so adequately (full text, all articles, reading order, chunking). The only meaningful omission is max_chars, which an agent may need to tune for large sections.

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 50%: code_slug and section_slug are documented in the schema, while offset and max_chars are not. The description compensates for offset by explaining its continuation role, but max_chars (default 30000, range 2000-100000) is left entirely unexplained in both places. 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Full text of a code section ... with all its articles, in reading order'), which implicitly separates it from leginova_get_code_article (single article) and leginova_get_code_outline (structure only). It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

The second sentence gives a clear operational instruction for pagination ('pass back `offset` to continue'), which is genuinely useful. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like get_code_article or get_code_outline; the intended usage is only implied by the content description.

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