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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting 'Keyless' and emphasizing that it returns 'FULL TEXT' / 'statutory text,' which clarifies access requirements and output expectations beyond the 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 core action, followed by an illustrative example and usage guidance. There is slight redundancy between 'Get the FULL TEXT' and 'Returns the statutory text,' but overall every sentence serves a purpose and no filler is present.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is returned, gives a concrete citation example, notes that no key is needed, and provides realistic use cases. The schema's article parameter additionally routes to md_articles for the valid article list.

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%, with both parameters clearly described: 'article' includes an example and a pointer to md_articles, and 'section' specifies the citation format. The tool description reinforces this with an example but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Maryland Code — Maryland state statutes — by citation.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does and is clearly distinct from sibling md_articles, which lists article names rather than returning statutory text.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'Use for "what does Maryland Criminal Law 2-201 say" or to check a Maryland statute a case relies on.' This gives clear context, though it does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for exclusion.

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