Get Sections Batch

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that missing sections are silently skipped and are not charged, which materially affects how an agent should interpret partial results. The schema description also reveals duplicate collapsing and order preservation, adding important behavior not present in annotations.

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?

Three short sentences carry the core purpose, a cross-reference to the single-section sibling, and the key usage rule, with no filler. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Together with the detailed schema and an existing output schema, the description covers what data is returned, when to choose it, how to identify sections, and what happens when IDs are missing. No significant gap remains for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema already covers actIds with examples, min/max counts, duplicate/order behavior, and a warning against constructing IDs from citations, so the tool description itself adds little parameter meaning. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema-description 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 first sentence names a concrete operation (get metadata for up to 50 sections) and the required resource identifier (act_ids), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from get_us_statute_section by positioning itself as the batch equivalent.

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 explicitly says to use this instead of looping get_us_statute_section when several act_ids are already available, and gives a concrete example. The parameter schema further adds an exclusion: do not synthesize IDs from citations, and names resolve_statute_citation as the alternative.

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