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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it names the underlying data source (DCCouncil/law-xml-codified, public domain), states it is keyless, and — most valuably — discloses the hard boundary that only the CURRENT codified text is available and that the tool will say so rather than hallucinate a prior version. That is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs to avoid a wrong-answer failure.

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 verb and resource, then examples, then return contents, then caveats — a sensible ordering. It is longer than strictly necessary and repeats citation examples that the schema already holds, but every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (statutory text, official heading, disposition, legislative history, prior codifications, cross references) and covers the source/limitation caveat. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it documents that the citation is accepted in natural forms ('D.C. Code § 22-2101', 'DC Code 22-2101') and that title numbers may carry a letter suffix (e.g. '27A-101'), which the schema only mentions in passing.

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 (get the FULL TEXT), a specific resource (a section of the D.C. Code), and the keying mechanism (by citation), with concrete examples '22-2101' and '42-3505.01'. An agent can distinguish this from dc_search without opening either 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 explicit trigger phrases ('what does D.C. Code 22-2101 say', checking a statute a case or lease relies on) and a clear exclusion — prior pre-amendment versions are not retrievable from this source. It never names the sibling dc_search as the alternative for broader lookups, so routing against alternatives is left implicit.

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