Table of contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the exact shape of the payload and the instruction to obey the embedded answer_rules when composing an answer. It stops short of describing pagination or size limits for large acts.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose before routing and the answer_rules note. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the middle clause packing the payload contents is slightly dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden and it does: it lists the structural contents, the citation/source_url/current_to metadata, and the answer_rules field. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, with act_id format examples and jurisdiction enum values fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

Names a specific resource (table of contents) and enumerates exactly what it returns: Parts, Divisions, Schedules, every section number and heading, plus citation, source_url and current_to. It is unmistakably distinct from sibling get_section, which returns actual text rather than the outline.

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?

Explicitly states the workflow condition: 'Use it to pick the right section number before calling get_section.' It names the alternative sibling and the reason to choose this one first, leaving nothing to inference.

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