get_chapter_outline

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose ordering (citation order), pagination (limit/offset), and a non-obvious trap (empty result for chapter 1 under the default source). It omits error behavior for a nonexistent chapter and any auth/permission notes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the source caveat. Every sentence adds information; the parenthetical example and the chapter-1 warning earn their space. Slightly dense but no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the confusing parts (source selection, empty-result trap, paging) adequately for this read tool, though it leaves the exact meaning of limit/offset to the schema.

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 0% for 4 params, so the description must compensate. It explains source semantics (mcl vs const) and the chapter format well, but only says 'paged with limit/offset' without clarifying paging behavior, bounds, or defaults beyond what the schema itself already declares.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the sections in a chapter... in citation order, with catchlines') and gives a concrete example (chapter "750" for the Michigan Penal Code). It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but an agent can still tell what this returns.

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?

Gives a real usage rule: pass source="const" for the Michigan Constitution and warns that the default source="mcl" returns nothing for chapter "1". No guidance on when to prefer a sibling (e.g. get_document or search) instead, so it isn't a full 5.

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