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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds non-obvious traits on top: 'Keyless' (no auth required), 'Guam publishes the CURRENT text only — no per-year historical archive; this tool says so rather than guessing' (an explicit data-freshness limit), and an enumeration of what is returned. It even warns that the two citation styles exist so the agent doesn't misconstruct input.

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 action and scope, then progressively details citation formats, return payload, and limitations. Every sentence carries information, though the citation-style passage is dense enough that it reads slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return burden and does so fully: statutory text, official catchline, chapter/title context, source PDF URL, and data_as_of. Combined with the keyless note and the historical-coverage caveat, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 goes beyond it by explaining WHY the two citation styles differ (newer titles use 'chapter.section' with a dot; older titles concatenate chapter with a zero-padded section) and by stating 'Either form works' plus the title range (1-22). That added interpretive context exceeds what the schema's field descriptions convey.

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 Guam Code Annotated (GCA)' — and anchors it with two concrete, contrasting citation examples including the actual catchlines. An agent immediately knows this is a statute-text lookup, distinct from search-oriented siblings like gu_search.

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 invocation contexts: 'what does 9 GCA 16.30 say' or to verify a Guam statute a case or contract relies on. It does not, however, name or exclude the closest alternative (gu_search), so the agent has clear context but no routing rule against a competing tool.

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