Get Us Statute Section

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds value by disclosing what is NOT included (section text) and what is included (HTML/PDF/XML links, history). The 'before paying for its full body' note gives useful operational context about cost/effort. No contradiction with 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 tight sentences: first states the core output, second clarifies the key exclusion and redirects to the right tool, third summarizes the ideal use case. No filler, front-loaded, and 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 single required parameter, the readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it does not do, when to use it, and which sibling to use instead. There is no obvious missing context needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains act_id with an example and formatting guidance. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level details, but it does not need to because the schema is thorough. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 that the tool returns metadata for a single statute/regulation/rule section keyed by act_id, specifying concrete contents like citation, hierarchy, breadcrumb, and amendment history. It explicitly excludes full section text and names a sibling tool that provides it, so it is sharply differentiated from get_us_statute_section_text and other siblings without needing to open 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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: use it to confirm the correct section before retrieving the full body, and explicitly says to use get_us_statute_section_text when section text is needed. This is direct, actionable routing among alternatives.

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