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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: what is returned (current text, catchline, history line), that it is keyless, and the significant limitation that only current text is published so pre-amendment versions are unavailable and the tool says so rather than guessing. Return format and error-handling behavior are the main things left unspecified.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by citation examples, return description, and the historical-archive caveat. Slightly dense with two example citations that partly duplicate the schema, but every sentence carries substantive information.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of explaining return values (text, catchline, history) and the key limitation (no historical archive). Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by enumerating accepted natural citation forms ('22-16-4', 'SDCL 22-16-4', '§ 22-16-4'). It reinforces the decimal-suffix case the schema already notes, so the added value is real but incremental.

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 (retrieve the FULL TEXT of an SDCL section by citation) and immediately grounds it with concrete citation examples. An agent can distinguish this direct-citation lookup from the sibling sd_search without opening either schema.

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 context ('Use for "what does SDCL 22-16-4 say" or to check a South Dakota statute a case or lease relies on'), which implies this is for known citations rather than fuzzy search. It does not explicitly name sd_search as the alternative for the search case, so the exclusion is only implied.

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