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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that by specifying it returns the full statutory text and that no key/auth is required. It does not describe error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is slight redundancy between 'Get the FULL TEXT' and 'Returns the statutory text,' but overall each sentence contributes useful information and the structure is efficient.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it states what is returned, gives the citation format, provides an example, notes the lack of auth, and gives concrete use cases. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single 'section' parameter is well documented with format and examples. The tool description reinforces the example citation but does not need to add further parameter meaning because the schema already carries the full burden.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: get the FULL TEXT of a Rhode Island General Laws section by citation. It also grounds the meaning with a concrete example ('R.I. Gen. Laws 11-23-1' is murder), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from unrelated siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use examples: for queries like 'what does Rhode Island General Laws 11-23-1 say' or checking an RI statute a case relies on. It also notes 'Keyless,' which is useful operational guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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