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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that only loaded state codes resolve to text, that held links return resolved:true with text, and that otherwise only the citation is returned. It also discloses that include_bills retrieves bills that amend, create, repeal, or cite the section.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, followed by concise invocation guidance, examples, and resolution behavior. The paragraph is dense but every sentence contributes useful information for correct invocation.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so by specifying full text, code placement, resolved:true behavior, citation-only fallback, and optional related bills. Coverage limitations are also called out via list_statute_coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantics for citation formatting, section_id provenance, and include_bills behavior. It does not explain the code parameter, but the schema already documents that parameter adequately.

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 a specific resource and operation: retrieve one statute section with full text and its code placement. It also distinguishes retrieval by section_id versus citation lookup, making it easy to differentiate from search_statutes and related sibling tools.

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 says how to supply either a section_id from a search or bill/measure link, or state plus citation in code format. It also names list_statute_coverage as the prerequisite check for loaded states and explains when to set include_bills.

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