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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'Keyless' (no auth), the scope of the public archive (1999-2025), and exactly what the response contains — current text, catchline, chapter context, and amendment history parsed from session-law brackets.

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 contract, then the year option. It is on the long side and the two illustrative citations are mildly redundant with the schema example, but almost every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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, and the description compensates by spelling out the return contents (text, catchline, chapter context, amendment history). Auth posture ('Keyless') and the historical-archive range are both covered, so nothing needed to call it 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 adds syntax the schema does not: accepted citation forms such as 'HRS 707-701' and '§707-701'. It also reinforces the year parameter's semantics as 'that year's historical archived text of the same section instead of the current one'.

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 Hawaii Revised Statutes') and immediately anchors it with two concrete citations. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling hi_search, which is a search tool, because this one takes a precise citation rather than a query.

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 phrasing ('Use for "what does HRS 707-701 say" or to check a Hawaii statute a case or lease relies on, now or as of a past year') and clarifies that passing year switches to archived text rather than current. It does not name a sibling as the alternative for free-text lookup, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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