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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real context beyond them: keyless access, full amendment history, and a historical_versions list whose citeid round-trips back through version_citeid. It does not cover error behavior for invalid citations or response size, leaving a small gap.

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-loads the payload (FULL TEXT) and then layers formats, return contents, and use cases in one dense but non-redundant block. Every clause adds information the agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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 no output schema, the description still fully characterizes the return payload — text, chapter breadcrumb, "Cite as" line, amendment history, and historical_versions. That is everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by enumerating accepted citation formats beyond the schema's "title-section" phrasing ("21 O.S. 701.7", "21 O.S. § 701.7") and by explaining why version_citeid makes citation optional.

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 Oklahoma Statutes by citation") plus worked examples ("21-701.7" Murder, "41-111" termination of tenancy). This clearly separates it from ok_search and ok_titles, which cannot return section text.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ("what does 21 O.S. 701.7 say", "Oklahoma murder statute") and the scenario of verifying a statute a case or contract relies on, including pre-amendment readings. It never names a sibling as the alternative or states an exclusion, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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