decode_ipc_bns_crosswalk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only a 'Not legal advice' disclaimer and a vague 'Standard envelope' return note, not substantive behavior such as what happens when a section has no counterpart or when an invalid section is supplied.

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 purpose and usage lines are front-loaded and effective, but the Args section duplicates schema text that is already 100% covered, and the Returns/Notes boilerplate adds length without information. Structure is clean; content is partially redundant.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mapping tool with a declared output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, direction, and safety sufficiently. It is thin on failure modes (unknown section, no counterpart found), which is the only notable gap.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the IPC default, so the baseline is 3. The Args block merely restates the schema ('Section number to map', 'Source Act (IPC or BNS)') without adding format, validation, or edge-case meaning.

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 ('bidirectional crosswalk between IPC and BNS sections'), which is distinguishable from the sibling lookup_* tools that return section text rather than mappings. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Use when you need to find the equivalent section in BNS from IPC or vice versa' gives a clear triggering condition and, together with from_act, implies the direction of the mapping. There are no stated exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. vs. lookup_ipc_section), which keeps it short of a 5.

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