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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses important behavior: it returns current statutory text, amendment history, and a pending_version with an effective date when applicable. It also explicitly states the historical-version limitation and that the tool acknowledges it rather than guessing, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds citation examples, accepted formats, return details, an important limitation, and usage cases. Every sentence adds practical value without unnecessary padding.

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 the one-parameter schema, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description does everything needed: it explains inputs, return fields, historical limitations, and usage context. There is no significant missing information for correct invocation.

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 covers the single citation parameter at 100%, including examples and the lettered-title note. The description adds useful semantics by listing accepted natural citation forms such as 'Ala. Code 13A-6-2' and '§ 13A-6-2', going beyond the schema text.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Code of Alabama 1975 ... by citation.' That is immediately understandable. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling al_search tool, so it falls short of the 5 criterion for sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear usage context: use for questions like 'what does Ala. Code 13A-6-2 say' or to check a statute a case or lease relies on. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative tool for keyword search, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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