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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds material context beyond them: 'Keyless' (no auth needed), the return shape ('statutory text ... and its effective date as a separate field'), the scoping caveat ('section body only, with no surrounding page text'), and the existence of a `text_scope` field indicating what a given answer contains. That is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 the example, then return-shape and caveats. Every clause carries information. Slightly dense — the parenthetical gloss 'Ohio state statutes' and the double example set add length without much marginal value, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

With one trivial parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to cite, what comes back (text plus effective date), the scope limitation, and that no key is required. Nothing material is missing for a correctly-invoked call.

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 schema already documents the single `section` parameter. The description goes one step further by showing that a prefixed citation form ('ORC 2903.02') is accepted, while the schema examples only show bare numbers — genuine added meaning. It stops short of discussing chapter/title scoping or error behavior for bad citations.

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 and resource: 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Ohio Revised Code — Ohio state statutes — by citation,' and immediately grounds it with a concrete example ('ORC 2903.02' → murder statute). No sibling tool covers state statutes, so no differentiation is needed, and the scope ('section body only') is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers: 'Use for "what does Ohio Revised Code 2903.02 say", "text of ORC 4511.19", or to check an Ohio statute a case relies on.' This gives the agent concrete query shapes rather than leaving usage implied. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., other states, federal statutes), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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