Get Section Definitions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that definitions are parsed from the chapter's definitions section, which is useful for interpretation. It does not cover edge cases like missing definitions, but that is not critical for this simple read-only tool.

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 compact: one sentence states the purpose and source, a second provides usage guidance with examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or fluff.

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 tool with one documented parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how the output is derived, and when to invoke it. An agent has enough context to select and call it correctly without additional information.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter act_id, including format, example, and a warning about hand-building IDs. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 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 states exactly what the tool returns: term definitions that govern a section, parsed from its chapter's definitions section. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_section_changes or get_section_text by focusing on definitions of terms of art, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: whenever a provision depends on a term of art and the statute's own definition is needed rather than the ordinary meaning. This clear condition, with examples like 'covered entity' and 'security', effectively routes the agent to the correct tool.

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