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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints: it is keyless, and it returns the statutory text, the location within the code, and the last amended date. It also clarifies that subdivisions like '187(a)' are not separate documents, which helps set expectations.

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 tight and front-loaded: the core action and resource appear in the first sentence, followed by a concrete mapping example, return summary, and usage cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read-only lookup tool, and the description covers the return contents, authentication requirement (keyless), and typical usage contexts. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the description itself stating what is returned, so an agent has enough context to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains both parameters with examples. The description reinforces the code abbreviation mapping and provides natural-language query examples, but it does not add material semantic meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the California Codes.' It clearly distinguishes its scope from the sibling ca_codes tool by being about a single section's full text, and it helps an agent recognize the domain immediately.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'what does California Penal Code 187 say', 'text of California Civil Code 1542', or checking a California statute a contract or case relies on. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use-case framing is clear enough to guide selection.

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