List Statute Divisions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it operates at any hierarchy level, returns children in statutory order, and is iterative ('walk'). This is meaningful added transparency.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation and ordering; the second gives the use cases. Every phrase earns its place 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?

Given the readOnlyHint annotation, the exhaustive schema with 100% coverage, an output schema, and a clear description, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing. The hierarchy-walking behavior and use cases are fully conveyed.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema itself fully documents each parameter with examples and corpus-specific notes, so no compensation is needed.

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 a precise action ('list the child divisions') and a specific resource (the statutory hierarchy: titles, chapters, parts, or sections). It also distinguishes itself from search-like tools by explicitly framing the purpose as structural browsing rather than known-section lookup.

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 gives clear context: use this to browse a code when you do not yet know the section number, or to enumerate everything under a chapter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the implied usage boundary is strong.

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