Get Section Neighbors

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about statutory ordering and chapter scope, but does not disclose further behavioral details such as behavior when no neighbors exist or whether the result includes the given section itself. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 focused sentences. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence gives concrete use cases without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only annotation, full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear use-case guidance, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The act_id assembly warning closes the main correctness gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by warning agents not to hand-assemble act_id: 'the title and section are derivable from a citation but the CHAPTER is not, so hand-built ids usually 404.' This is valuable practical guidance that prevents invocation errors.

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 the verb (get) and resource (sections immediately before and after a given section), and specifies the ordering and scope: 'within its own chapter or code, in statutory order.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_section_changes or get_section_cited_by without needing to inspect schemas.

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 identifies when to use this tool: 'to read a provision in context, to find a definitions or penalties sibling, or to check whether the operative language continues into the next section.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use cases are concrete and actionable.

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