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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond them by stating 'Keyless' (no authentication needed) and 'Returns the statutory text', which tells the agent what to expect from the call. It doesn't cover failure modes for invalid citations, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded: the core action first, the citation example second, the use-case routing last. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns (statutory text), how to format the citation, and when to use it. Only the absence of any error/not-found behavior keeps it short of 5.

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%: both 'title' and 'section' are documented with concrete examples ('17-A' crimes, '29-A' motor vehicles; '201' murder, '2411' OUI). The description's citation example reinforces the format but adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 Maine Revised Statutes), and the input form (by citation). The example '"17-A M.R.S. 201" is murder' makes the tool's function unmistakable and no sibling covers statutory lookup, so it's easily distinguished.

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?

Explicitly names two use cases: answering 'what does Maine Title 17-A section 201 say' and verifying a statute a case relies on. This gives clear context for invocation, but no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the 35 siblings.

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