retrieve_part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful warning—that a part's response can be large—but does not mention other operational traits such as pagination, error behavior, or performance implications.

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 description is two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the cautionary sibling guidance in the second sentence. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given full schema parameter coverage and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation. It conveys what the tool retrieves, warns about large responses, and directs the agent to the right alternative.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is already described with type, default, and example. The description adds contextual color by calling a part a cluster of sections, but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 names the specific operation ('Retrieve the text'), the resource ('entire CFR part'), and defines a part as a cluster of related sections. It also distinguishes itself from retrieve_section by calling out the exact-section scenario.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to prefer retrieve_section when the clause maps to one exact section, giving a clear routing rule. This is sufficient to choose between the closely related siblings.

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