lookup_evidence_act_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 legal disclaimer ('Not legal advice') and mentions a 'standard envelope' return, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or what happens for an invalid section number.

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 Args/Returns/Notes structure is front-loaded and easy to scan, with no redundancy. The boilerplate 'Returns: Standard envelope with section details' is slightly wasted given an output schema exists.

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, annotations covering the safety profile, and a single fully documented parameter, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call this correctly. The only real gap, sibling disambiguation, is minor.

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% for the single 'section' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates that it is an 'Indian Evidence Act section number' without adding accepted format or syntax (e.g., '5' vs 'Section 5').

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 ('Indian Evidence Act section detail'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate from lookup_bsa_section, the successor statute (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), which is a real source of confusion given the sibling list.

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 Indian Evidence Act' gives clear triggering context. No exclusions or explicit alternative routing are offered, so it falls short of the 5-level 'when-not' guidance.

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