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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds modest context in 'Keyless' and 'Returns the statutory text,' but no additional behavioral detail (e.g., behavior on invalid citations) beyond that.

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 two sentences and every clause carries weight: purpose, concrete examples, return type, keyless access, and use cases. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple fetch-by-citation tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers how to call it: the citation format, examples, and what comes back. The safety profile is in annotations, so nothing an agent needs 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% and each parameter already has rich descriptions with examples and chapter guidance. The description's examples ('2502' is murder) reinforce but do not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 pair ('Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes') and gives concrete examples ('18 Pa.C.S. 2502' is murder; '75 Pa.C.S. 3802' is DUI), making the tool's function immediately identifiable. It also distinguishes itself from any search or analysis tool by explicitly stating it returns statutory text by citation.

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?

The description explicitly states the intended use cases: 'what does 18 Pa.C.S. 2502 say' and checking a statute a case relies on. It notes 'Keyless,' implying no auth setup is needed, but does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools. Since no sibling tool covers statutes, this clear context is sufficient.

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