lookup_bsa_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest context (returns a standard envelope, plus a not-legal-advice disclaimer) but says nothing about lookup failure behavior for invalid section numbers or how the envelope is shaped.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the purpose first and supporting details grouped under Args/Returns/Notes. The sectioned layout is slightly boilerplate but nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so the terse Returns line is acceptable, and a one-parameter tool needs little else. The remaining gap is contextual disambiguation from the other statutory-lookup siblings and the old vs new evidence law, which the description never addresses.

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 the single parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The 'section: BSA section number' line only restates the schema and adds no format guidance such as whether to pass '1' or 'Section 1', or the valid range.

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 (look up a BSA section detail) and names the governing act, so the agent knows it retrieves statutory text. However, it does not distinguish itself from the several near-identical lookup_ipc_section / lookup_bns_section / lookup_evidence_act_section siblings that share the same verb and shape.

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 'Use when you need the title and description of a section' sentence gives an implied trigger, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. In particular it omits the one decision that matters here: BSA is the new evidence statute versus the sibling lookup_evidence_act_section for the old Act.

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