Get a section

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds that the result includes a full citation, source URL, current_to date, retrieved_at, and answer_rules, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not address rate limits or error cases.

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 compact, front-loads what is returned, and avoids repetition. Some clauses could be tightened, but every sentence contributes.

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?

For a read-only, single-section retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers return structure, citation fields, and usage rules. Together with the fully documented input schema and annotations, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a retrieval tool for a single section of legislation, stating what it returns (verbatim text with subsections and citation fields). However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_toc or search_law beyond the obvious section-level scope.

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 says to quote the text rather than paraphrase and to follow answer_rules, which provides some usage direction. But it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an act_id from find_act.

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