Get Section Cross State

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: results are ranked by similarity, limited to state statutes, and describe cross-state subject matching. This helps an agent understand what to expect from the response.

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 purposeful sentences: the first defines the core function and ranking behavior, the second gives real-world use cases. No filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with a clear output schema, 100% parameter schema coverage, and an explicit statement of scope and ranking behavior, the description is complete. Agents have enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and both 'act_id' and 'limit' are described with examples and format details. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter semantics since the schema fully carries that burden. 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: returns provisions in OTHER states addressing the same subject as a given state statute section, ranked by similarity. It explicitly scopes to state statutes and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_section_neighbors or get_section_cited_by by emphasizing cross-state comparison.

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 description provides explicit use cases: fifty-state surveys, multi-jurisdiction compliance, and checking whether a home-state rule is typical or an outlier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the use-case guidance clearly signals appropriate invocation contexts.

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