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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: 'Keyless' (no auth required) and that it returns the statutory text rather than metadata or summaries.

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 citation decoding, then return value, then usage triggers. Dense and mostly waste-free; the double-emphasis on 'FULL TEXT' and the inline quote are minor stylistic padding.

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?

No output schema, but the description states what comes back ('Returns the statutory text'). For a two-parameter, keyless read tool, an agent has everything needed; only pagination/length behavior for very long sections is unaddressed, which is low risk here.

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% and both params already carry examples ('265', '90', '1', '24'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's citation example ('c. 265, s. 1') helps map citation notation onto the chapter/section params, a marginal gain over the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Massachusetts General Laws ... by citation.' It also decodes the citation format ('M.G.L. c. 265, s. 1'), making the resource unambiguous and distinct from any research/validation siblings.

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 when-to-use with two concrete scenarios ('what does Massachusetts General Law chapter 90 section 24 say' and checking a statute a case relies on). No exclusions or named alternatives, but the sibling list contains no competing statute-retrieval tool, so routing risk is low.

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