retrieve_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation, and 'exact legal text' tells the agent the output is verbatim statutory language rather than a summary. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a simple read tool with an output schema these are secondary.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object, then offers an illustrative example. There is no fluff, no repetition of schema descriptions, and every word contributes.

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 low-complexity retrieval tool, the one-sentence description plus a fully documented input schema and an output schema is complete. The agent knows exactly what the tool returns (exact legal text of one section), what parameters to provide (covered in schema), and what format to expect (covered by output schema). No critical selection or invocation information is missing.

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 already fully documents all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example, '40 CFR 261.10', which illustrates how the required title, part, and section parameters map to a standard citation and reinforces the expected string formats for part and section.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and the exact resource: 'the exact legal text of one CFR section', with a concrete example citation. The phrase 'one section' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like retrieve_part and retrieve_title, which operate on larger units, and from search_by_keyword, which searches rather than retrieves exact text.

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 implies when to use the tool—whenever a single CFR section's text is needed—but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as retrieve_part, retrieve_title, or search_regulations. The sibling list hints at the family of tools, yet no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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