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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: 'Keyless' signals no authentication is required, and 'Returns the statutory text' sets the return expectation.

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 verb+resource, followed by a helpful concrete example, return note, and usage triggers. Tight overall, though the murder example slightly duplicates the schema's own example.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema needed, the description covers purpose, keyless access, and return content. Nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'section' parameter is already fully documented with examples ('565.020' (murder 1) or '577.010' (DWI)'). The description's 'RSMo 565.020 is first degree murder' largely restates the schema's example rather than adding new format or syntax detail, so 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) and resource (FULL TEXT of a section of the Missouri Revised Statutes) with the retrieval key (by citation). The tool is immediately distinguishable from all siblings, which are unrelated research/entity/prediction 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 frames usage with a concrete query example ('what does Mo. Rev. Stat. 565.020 say') and a second use case ('to check a statute a case relies on'). It doesn't name when NOT to use it or an alternative, but no plausible sibling competes for this task.

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