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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful behavior: it is keyless, returns current statutory text, chapter information, amendment History citations, and Case Notes annotations published by asbar.org.

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 and resource, then efficiently covers accepted formats, return contents, access model, and use cases. The length is justified by the amount of genuinely useful retrieval context.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description supplies what is needed: exact resource scope, input formats, return contents, and keyless access. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 documents the single citation parameter at 100% coverage, and the description adds substantial value by listing multiple accepted citation formats, including "46.3502," "A.S.C.A. § 46.3502," "ASCA 46-3502," and "Title 46, Section 3502."

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 verb and resource: retrieving the full text of an American Samoa Code Annotated section by citation. It also makes the citation-based scope explicit, which distinguishes it from broader statutory search or title-listing siblings such as as_search and as_titles.

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 use cases, including "what does A.S.C.A. 46.3502 say," "American Samoa murder statute," and checking a statute a case or contract relies on. It does not explicitly name when to use a sibling search tool instead, but the citation-based usage context is strong.

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