lookup_bns_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds a disclaimer ('Not legal advice') and a return envelope note, which is useful but not rich behavioral context. It does not mention rate limits, permissions, or data freshness, so it meets the minimum viable bar with annotations taking the lead.

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 short and front-loaded with the main clause, followed by structured Args/Returns/Notes sections. Every line is relevant, though the 'Args' line duplicates the schema and the legal disclaimer is somewhat boilerplate, preventing a perfect 5.

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 detailed; the description correctly refers to a 'standard envelope'. Annotations cover safe-read/idempotent behavior. The main gap is the lack of sibling differentiation for a lookup-specific tool. Overall, the description is complete enough for a simple read-only utility.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'section' parameter with an example. The description's 'Args: section: BNS section number' adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (look up) and resource (BNS section detail), and the Args/Returns/Notes structure makes the intent unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling lookup tools (e.g., lookup_ipc_section, lookup_bnss_section, lookup_crpc_section) beyond the acronym BNS, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

Provides a clear context ('when you need the title and description of a section in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita'), which implies usage. But it offers no explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs lookup_ipc_section or decode_ipc_bns_crosswalk), so guidance is only implied.

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