outline

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds structural context (headings are grouped by chapter), which helps the agent interpret the result, but says nothing about ordering, depth, or size of the outline.

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?

Two short sentences, zero redundancy, with the capability stated first and the usage rationale second. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description plus structured fields cover everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Only the shape of the outline output is left unaddressed, and the output schema supplies that.

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 the single act parameter is already documented as accepting an id, number, or a word from the name. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the schema carries the full burden and baseline 3 applies.

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?

"List the article headings of one act, with its chapters" gives a specific verb (list), resource (article headings) and scope (one act, grouped by chapter). It is distinguishable from get_article, which is implied by "before pulling its text," though no sibling is named outright.

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 states a concrete use case: orient yourself in a long regulation before retrieving text. That gives the agent a clear when-to-use signal and implicitly points to get_article for the follow-up step, but no explicit exclusion or named alternative.

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