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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, but the description adds real value beyond them: "Keyless" discloses that no credential is needed, and "Does NOT return superseded/historical full text — only the current version and its amendment citations" is a substantive content limitation. It doesn't say what happens for an invalid or out-of-range citation, which is the remaining 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-loaded with the core verb and resource, then examples, then a use-case and an exclusion. It's dense and every sentence contributes, though the two alias examples plus the use-case sentence overlap somewhat and could be tightened.

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-required-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema; the description states what is returned (full text, effective date, amendment citations) and what is not (historical versions). Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 schema already gives the same examples and the dash-component parsing note, so the description's parameter detail mostly duplicates structured data. The alias hints ("murder", "open/concealed carry") add some meaning for confirming the right section, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

A specific verb ("Get the FULL TEXT") plus a precisely scoped resource ("a section of the Utah Code") and the extras returned (effective date, amendment history). The examples tie citations to concepts (murder, open/concealed carry), so an agent can tell this apart from the keyword-oriented ut_code_search sibling.

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?

It gives explicit triggers — "Use for 'what does Utah Code 76-5-203 say' or to check a Utah statute a case, lease, or citation relies on" — plus two sample citations, so invocation context is clear. It stops short of naming ut_code_search as the alternative for keyword lookups, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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