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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, but the description adds real substance: it is keyless, returns current text plus official catchline and title/chapter context, and explicitly warns that only current text is available — no amendment-history line and no historical pre-amendment version. That limitation disclosure is exactly what an agent needs to avoid overclaiming.

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 and citation format are front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the example citations appear twice (once in the body, once implicitly via the schema) and the closing usage sentence could be tighter. Slightly dense rather than wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does: current statutory text, catchline, title/chapter context. It also covers the key epistemic caveat about missing amendment history, leaving nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly.

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 by enumerating accepted natural forms: "4.11.010", "AS 04.11.010", and "Alaska Statutes 11.41.100". The schema example only shows the bare dotted form, so this input-flexibility guidance is a real gain.

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 and resource: retrieve the full text of an Alaska Statutes section by citation. Concrete citation examples ("4.11.010" = alcohol licensing, "11.41.100" = murder) make the domain unmistakable, and the citation-lookup framing separates it from the keyword-oriented ak_search sibling.

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 explicit trigger scenarios: answering "what does AS 11.41.100 say" or verifying a statute that a case or lease relies on. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., ak_search for topic/keyword lookup) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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