get_law_text

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the tool reports edition and currency to prevent mistaken reliance on superseded text, and by explaining the default elision behavior when full=false. No contradiction with 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?

Three well-structured sentences, each conveying distinct information: purpose, input modes, and behavioral caveats. No filler or redundancy.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input modes, the full flag, and the edition/currency reporting, giving an agent enough to invoke correctly. It does not describe the exact response shape, but for a retrieval tool with strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship that a citation is an alternative to title+section, clarifying parameter usage beyond the individual schema descriptions. This justifies a small increase.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the operative text of a U.S. Code section, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_regulation_text and get_decision_text by explicitly scoping to U.S. Code.

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 description explains the two input modes (citation string or title+section) and instructs when to set full=true. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for regulations or decisions), but the sibling names and the specificity of the description make this implicit.

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