civic.get_code_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: results carry citation history exactly as published, include a link to the live page, and missing sections return found=False rather than an error. This sets accurate expectations beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by critical lookup limitations, then result behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly: a clear purpose, citation format examples, a lookup-only warning, and missing-section behavior. An output schema exists, so return value structure does not need to be repeated. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is omitted.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the single 'citation' parameter. It provides concrete examples ('1-500', '18.2-57') and clarifies that the value is a Code of Virginia section citation. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get the text of a Code of Virginia section by its citation.' It further distinguishes itself from full-text search by stating 'Direct lookup only,' which separates it from any search-style sibling. The sibling tools are in different domains (jurisdiction, zoning, parcels), so no ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 states when to use the tool: the caller must already know or have found the section number. It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'this is not a full-text search.' This is actionable guidance that prevents misuse without requiring inference.

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