list_statute_divisions

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It states cost (1 credit, refunded on failed lookups), the level-by-level return behavior, interior vs leaf node details (sectionCount, isLeaf, actId), and the supported corpus types. This goes well beyond a minimal description and sets clear expectations about outputs and side effects.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: core concept, cost, usage examples, node structure, and alternative for other corpora. It uses a clear bullet-like example format and front-loads the essential behavior, making it easy to scan while retaining necessary detail.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, hierarchical navigation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers usage patterns, cost, node metadata, supported corpora, and when to use an alternative. It leaves no significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds substantial meaning via concrete examples mapping parameter combinations to results, clarifying the role of identifiers as filters, and explaining the 'deepest level you know' pattern. This enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 specific verb ('walk the statutory tree one level at a time') and resource ('immediate children of wherever you are'), clearly distinguishing it from searching and other statute tools. It enumerates supported corpora and explicitly contrasts with the search endpoint for flatter corpora, making the tool's unique 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: browse USC/CFR/STATE/REGULATION via hierarchical drilling, and use /us/statutes/search for other flatter corpora. It also gives concrete parameter combination examples (e.g., corpusType=USC, titleNumber=42, chapter=21) and explains how to pass identifiers back to drill deeper, which is clear usage instruction.

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