get_code_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that output includes 'diagrams, cross-references, and source PDF link,' informing about key return elements. However, it does not mention behavior for missing or invalid section numbers, which would improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states action and input, second adds output details and usage guidance. Front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage context, and output highlights. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description illustrates parameter usage with an example ('e.g. '142.0610''), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type 'string'. This compensates somewhat, though it could be more explicit about allowed format or constraints.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Fetch' with resource 'full text of a specific SDMC section' and gives an example section number. It distinguishes from sibling tool search_municipal_code by stating 'Prefer this over search when you already know the section.' This clearly defines the tool's scope and differentiation.

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 advises when to use this tool over search: 'Prefer this over search when you already know the section.' This provides clear context for selection, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if unsure of section number).

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