lookup_crpc_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a modest behavioral note (returns a "standard envelope with section details" and a not-legal-advice disclaimer), but does not disclose error behavior for invalid section numbers or the envelope's shape.

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-loads the purpose in one sentence, then uses Args/Returns/Notes structure that is easy to scan. Slightly padded by the generic "standard envelope" phrasing and a boilerplate disclaimer, but no real waste.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it says enough to invoke the tool correctly. The only missing piece is any guidance on handling a section that does not exist.

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 there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates "section: CrPC section number" without adding syntax, format, or validation details (e.g. whether to pass "144" or "144A").

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 (CrPC section) and says what is returned (title and description of a section). It distinguishes the legal domain from other lookups only by naming CrPC; it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related lookup_ipc_section / lookup_bns_section siblings, which the agent must infer from the tool name.

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 Code of Criminal Procedure" gives a clear usage context, but there are no exclusions and no routing to alternatives such as the IPC/BNS/BNSS section-lookup siblings. Implied usage only.

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