lookup_ipc_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 by structured data. The description adds only a 'not legal advice' disclaimer, which is a liability note rather than a behavioral trait; it says nothing about invalid section handling, error behavior, or coverage limits of the IPC dataset.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the block is short overall. The Args and Returns sections do duplicate what the input schema and output schema already carry, which is mild waste but not bloat.

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 tool with an output schema and annotations, the basics are covered. The notable gap is that it never mentions the IPC's replacement by the BNS, which is exactly the context an agent needs when choosing among the sibling section lookups.

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 schema already gives the format plus an example ('420'), so the description's restatement 'section: IPC section number' adds no meaning. Baseline 3 applies 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 and resource ('Look up an IPC section detail') and pins the domain to the Indian Penal Code, which separates it from the sibling lookups for BNS, CrPC, BNSS, BSA and the Evidence Act. It does not, however, address how it relates to decode_ipc_bns_crosswalk, which also concerns IPC sections.

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 Penal Code' gives a usable trigger condition, but there are no exclusions and no routing guidance despite a crowded family of section-lookup siblings. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer the BNS lookup or the IPC↔BNS crosswalk instead.

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