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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a real behavioral trait: only states whose code is loaded resolve to text, held sections carry resolved:true plus the text, otherwise only the citation is returned as written. It also explains the include_bills side effect. It omits auth, error, or pagination behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return semantics in the first clause before detailing inputs, and every sentence earns its place. The inline raw endpoint strings are slightly noisy and the single run-on paragraph reduces scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values, and it does: full text, place in the code, resolved:true vs citation-only fallback, and the optional bills payload. Complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it leaves error/empty-result handling unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: citation must be printed 'exactly as the code prints it' with concrete examples, section_id provenance, and the effect of include_bills (bills that amend/create/repeal/cite). Useful additions.

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+resource: returns one statute section with full text and its place in the code, and it names both the section_id and citation entry points (with the underlying endpoints). It implicitly differentiates from search siblings by sourcing section_id 'from a search or a bill/measure link,' but never names search_statutes or get_bill_statutes explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: supply section_id from a search or bill/measure link, or state + citation exactly as the code prints it, and flags that only loaded states resolve (routing the agent to list_statute_coverage). No explicit exclusions or named alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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