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 value beyond them: it declares the tool is keyless (no auth needed), enumerates what is returned (statutory text, 'Source:' amendment history, cross references), and flags the 2025 edition limitation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently packed with examples, return contents, and the year caveat. It repeats 'C.R.S. 18-3-102' three times and is slightly denser than needed, keeping it just below a 5.

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, yet the description compensates by describing the return payload (text, source history, cross references). Auth ('Keyless'), the edition range, and the unsupported 2025 year are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100% and both properties are well described, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further, explaining the motivation for 'year' (viewing how a section read before an amendment) and restating citation format, adding usable meaning over the schema alone.

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 — 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Colorado Revised Statutes ... by citation' — with concrete citation examples. The scoping to 'by citation' implicitly separates it from its co_search and co_titles siblings, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 concrete use cases ('what does C.R.S. 18-3-102 say', 'Colorado landlord security deposit law', checking a statute a case relies on) and a clear condition for the year parameter. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., vs co_search), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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