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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds context beyond them: 'Keyless' (no auth/API key needed) and 'Returns the statutory text' (light return-format signal). It stops short of noting coverage limits such as whether historical or superseded versions are retrievable.

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 core action and resource, then examples and use cases in two efficient sentences. Slight redundancy with 'Code of Laws — South Carolina state statutes', but nothing is wasteful.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with no output schema; the description covers intent, input format, keyless access and that statutory text is returned. This is enough for correct invocation, though return shape details (length, amendments) are unspecified.

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% with a single documented parameter (format 'title-chapter-section', with examples). The description repeats the same example citation rather than adding syntax guidance, 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (FULL TEXT of a South Carolina Code section) by citation, with concrete examples ('S.C. Code 16-3-10' is murder). No sibling tool overlaps, so disambiguation is moot and the example citations make the target 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?

Gives clear trigger phrasing ('what does South Carolina Code 16-3-10 say') and a second use case (checking an SC statute a case relies on). It doesn't state when NOT to use it or name an alternative, but no sibling offers comparable functionality, so context is sufficient.

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