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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), lowering the bar. The description adds value beyond those flags by disclosing that access is keyless and that the return is the full statutory text — behavioral facts the annotations don't convey. 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?

Three short sentences with the core function front-loaded in sentence one, followed by an illustrative example and usage guidance. The only minor redundancy is 'Returns the statutory text' partially restating 'Get the FULL TEXT,' but overall there is no waste.

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 1-param, keyless, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers what comes back (full statutory text), how to ask (by citation), and when to use it. With no output schema, the explicit statement that the return is statutory text is helpful; only behavior on invalid citations is left unspecified, which is minor.

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% — the schema already specifies the citation format ('Title-chapter-section') with two worked examples ('45-5-102', '61-8-401'). The description's example reinforces this but contributes no new semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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+resource+method: 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Montana Code Annotated — Montana state law — by citation.' The worked example ('MCA 45-5-102' is deliberate homicide) anchors the abstraction concretely, and no sibling tool performs Montana statute lookup, so differentiation is effectively built-in.

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?

It names explicit user intents — 'what does MCA 45-5-102 say' or checking a Montana statute a case relies on — telling an agent exactly when to invoke it. The 'Keyless' note signals no setup or auth prerequisite. It stops short of naming an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, though no sibling tool competes for this job.

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