Get Section Cited By

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful context about the inverse relationship to crossReferences. However, it does not disclose operational details such as pagination behavior, empty-result handling, or whether both USC and CFR results are always returned together; the schema covers limit, but the description itself adds no behavioral caveats.

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 two sentences with the core result front-loaded and the intended use cases following immediately. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or 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?

Given the rich schema, the readOnlyHint annotation, and the existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the inverse relationship and offers clear use cases. A small gap is the lack of any mention of the limit parameter or general response shape, but those are already covered by structured fields.

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%, so the baseline applies. The description text itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the act_id schema entry provides valuable guidance about not hand-building IDs and explains why doing so usually causes 404s. This is sufficient given the high schema coverage.

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 precisely defines the tool as returning USC and CFR sections whose text cross-references a given section, explicitly framing it as the inverse of the crossReferences field on a section lookup. This clearly distinguishes it from related section tools such as get_section_neighbors or get_section_definitions without ambiguity.

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?

It provides concrete use cases: finding where a definition or requirement is actually invoked, or gauging how load-bearing a provision is across the code. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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