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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool is 'Keyless' and returns 'the statutory text', clarifying access requirements and output. No contradiction 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?

Two efficient sentences communicate what the tool does, the legal domain, a concrete example, access model, and typical use cases. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the jurisdiction, the citation format, the returned content, and the intended scenarios. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the lone parameter, 'section', is already well-documented with format guidance and an example. The description adds a citation example but does not need to do more given full schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Get the FULL TEXT of a section'), the resource ('Michigan Compiled Laws — Michigan state statutes'), and the input method ('by citation'). The concrete example 'MCL 750.316' disambiguates the tool clearly from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 gives use cases: 'what does MCL 750.316 say' or checking a Michigan statute a case relies on. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but among the sibling set there is no competing statute-lookup tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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