get_rule_toc

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'quick lookup,' implying a read operation, but does not confirm whether it is safe or idempotent, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, yet every word is earned; still, it is underspecified for a tool with no other documentation.

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 complexity (2 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how to use history_id, or how this tool fits into the overall workflow of the regulation tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails. It does not explain the meaning of law_id or history_id, nor how they relate to the table of contents lookup. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('quick lookup') and resource ('regulation table of contents, chapters, sections, articles'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_rule_content or search_rule, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to choose a sibling tool.

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