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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses that the tool is keyless (no auth), that it returns the current text plus catchline, chapter/title context and the amendment HISTORY line, and — critically — that Idaho publishes current text only with no per-year historical archive, and that the tool will say so rather than guess. This is exactly the kind of scope-limit disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 the free-text citation forms, then the return shape, then the important archive caveat. Slightly redundant ("18-4001 is murder" is echoed by the usage example "what does Idaho Code 18-4001 say"), but every clause 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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (current statutory text, official catchline, chapter/title context, amendment history line). Combined with the input-format guidance and the archive limitation, 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by listing the accepted natural input forms ("18-4001", "Idaho Code 18-4001", "I.C. § 18-4001") that the schema does not enumerate, plus content examples anchoring the citation to a real section.

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 precise resource (a section of the Idaho Statutes / Idaho Code), and the retrieval key (citation), with concrete examples that remove ambiguity. It is clearly a single-section full-text fetch rather than a keyword search, which distinguishes it from the id_search sibling.

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 when-to-use triggers: 'what does Idaho Code 18-4001 say' and checking a statute a case or lease relies on. It does not explicitly name id_search or another sibling as the alternative for lookup-style queries, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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