lookup_bnss_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the 'standard envelope' return shape and a 'not legal advice' disclaimer, which is useful domain context, but nothing about error behavior or miss handling. A 3 is appropriate given the low bar set by annotations.

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 one-line purpose followed by compact Args/Returns/Notes sections. Everything present is relevant, though the structured header labels add slight overhead for a one-parameter tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no elaboration, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, usage condition, and a legal disclaimer, leaving only error/miss handling unaddressed — a minor gap for a simple read lookup.

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% with a single required parameter, so the schema already documents 'BNSS section number to lookup'. The description's 'section: BNSS section number' restates rather than extends that, matching the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('BNSS section detail') and names the exact statute (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), which distinguishes it from the many sibling lookup_*_section tools for IPC, BNS, CrPC, and BSA. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the resource naming does the differentiation work.

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 the title and description of a section in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita' gives a clear triggering condition tied to the statute. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., crosswalk to IPC), so it falls 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.