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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: 'Returns the statutory text' clarifies the output, 'Keyless' notes no authentication is needed, and 'FULL TEXT' indicates the result is the complete section, not a summary. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The example and usage note are useful, though there is minor redundancy between 'Get the FULL TEXT' and 'Returns the statutory text', and between 'Kansas Statutes Annotated' and 'Kansas state law'. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It specifies what the tool returns (statutory text), how to phrase the query, and when to use it. An output schema is not necessary since the return is plain text and is already described.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'section' parameter with examples ('21-5402', '8-1567') and the meaning of the dash. The description repeats these examples without adding new information about format, validation, or possible edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the specific verb 'Get', the resource ('a section of the Kansas Statutes Annotated'), and the scope ('FULL TEXT by citation'). It also gives a concrete example ('K.S.A. 21-5402' is first degree murder), making the tool's function immediately clear and distinct from any sibling that might do case research or legal validation.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use for "what does K.S.A. 21-5402 say" or to check a Kansas statute a case relies on.' This clearly defines when to invoke the tool. There are no siblings targeting Kansas statutes, so explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is less critical, but it is still absent.

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