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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns the statutory text and is 'Keyless,' which tells the agent no authentication is required. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the annotation bar is already met.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds a compact example, return behavior, authentication note, and use cases. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context without 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 one-parameter lookup tool with rich schema coverage and annotations, the description is complete enough to select and invoke it correctly. It explains the return value as statutory text despite there being no output schema, and it covers the key usage scenario.

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%, so the single 'section' parameter is already documented with examples in the schema. The description reinforces the citation format with 'Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-303' but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Nebraska Revised Statutes... by citation.' It gives a concrete citation example and distinguishes the tool from general research or entity tools. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit usage contexts: 'what does Nebraska Revised Statute 28-303 say' and 'check a Nebraska statute a case relies on.' It does not name when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but no sibling tool is a close substitute for Nebraska statute lookup.

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