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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context by saying the tool is keyless and returns the statutory text, but it does not disclose behavior around invalid citations, versioning, or whether the text is current.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core action, then adds a concrete example, an access note ('Keyless'), and usage guidance. It is reasonably tight, though 'Returns the statutory text' is somewhat redundant with 'Get the FULL TEXT' in the first sentence.

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 single-parameter read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers citation format, a worked example, access requirements, and intended use cases. It leaves out edge cases like repealed or amended statutes, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations.

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 the schema already describes the section parameter with examples and the dash-as-title-separator convention. The description reinforces the citation format and adds a memorable murder example, but it does not substantially expand on what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Connecticut General Statutes by citation.' It also gives a concrete example ('Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-54a' is murder), making the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct from the unrelated sibling tools.

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: for questions like 'what does Connecticut General Statutes 53a-54a say' or to check a CT statute a case relies on. It does not name alternatives, but the sibling list contains no competing statute-lookup tool, so the absence of exclusions is not a significant gap.

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