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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds useful context beyond these annotations, notably that the tool is 'Keyless' (no authentication required) and that it 'Returns the statutory text,' clarifying the output. It does not contradict any annotations, and the added details help the agent understand the operation's nature without over-claiming side effects.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the core action ('Get the FULL TEXT'), provide an illustrative example, and end with usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the function, the second gives a concrete legal citation, and the third specifies when to use the tool. There is no redundant or filler content, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose and 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?

For a simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what the tool does, how to invoke it (via section citation), what it returns (statutory text), and when to use it. It also notes the 'Keyless' aspect, which is relevant for invocation. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it correctly without further clarification.

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 description already fully documents the 'section' parameter with examples and an explanation that the title is the part before the dash. The tool description provides an additional example ('A.R.S. 13-1105') but this largely repeats the schema information without adding new semantics or constraints. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the full text of an Arizona Revised Statute section by citation. It provides a concrete example ('A.R.S. 13-1105' is first degree murder) and distinguishes this from any potential sibling tools by focusing specifically on statutory text retrieval. The verb 'Get' and resource 'Arizona Revised Statutes' are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for

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