ecfr_section

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns 'rendered regulation content,' which gives some output context, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as pagination, large response sizes when requesting an entire part, or date-based versioning behavior beyond what the schema already implies.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by helpful workflow guidance. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description provides the primary function, return format, and a clear workflow with sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, it could benefit from more specifics on the structure of the rendered content, but for a simple retrieval tool with well-documented parameters, it is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described. The description does not add new parameter semantics; it only restates that both section and part can be retrieved. Since the schema is fully descriptive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: 'Get the full text of a specific CFR section or part. Returns the rendered regulation content.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools ecfr_search and ecfr_title_structure by indicating they are preceding discovery steps.

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 explicitly guides the agent to 'Use ecfr_search or ecfr_title_structure first to find the title, part, and section numbers,' establishing a clear workflow and naming alternatives for finding identifiers. It does not mention when not to use the tool, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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