get_irc_provision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns official text, supports historical reads via as_of, includes subdivisions by default, and can truncate output with max_chars. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the bare operation.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a bullet-style argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important practical warning about as_of is included without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

All parameters are covered with clear semantics, the purpose is precise, and the output schema exists to describe return values. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, including handling of the important as_of edge case.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters, and it does. It gives citation format examples, defines include_children, explains max_chars truncation, and provides crucial as_of usage context. This is exemplary compensation for a schema with no descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the official text of an Internal Revenue Code provision.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_treasury_reg and search_tax_law, which target different legal materials or operations.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, especially the as_of guidance that tax questions usually concern past years and current law is often wrong. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, but the provided context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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