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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Returns the statutory text' and 'Keyless,' which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides context about output and access requirements, earning a score above baseline.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes an example in the first sentence. It uses three short sentences to convey purpose, an example, return type, and usage guidance without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what it returns (statutory text), how to call it (by citation), and provides an example. There is no missing information an agent would need to correctly invoke it.

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 descriptive parameter explanations (title number examples, section examples). The description reinforces this with the example '13 V.S.A. 2301' mapping directly to title=13, section=2301, and clarifies that section is 'as cited.' This adds value beyond the schema by tying the parameters to a concrete legal citation format.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving the full text of a Vermont statute section by citation. It provides a concrete example (13 V.S.A. 2301 = murder) and explicitly distinguishes it from unrelated siblings by focusing on Vermont statutes specifically. The verb 'Get' and resource 'FULL TEXT of a section' make the action 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use for "what does 13 VSA 2301 say" or to check a Vermont statute a case relies on.' It also mentions 'Keyless' indicating no authentication is needed, which is a practical guideline. While it doesn't state when not to use, the tool is narrowly scoped and the sibling list contains no competing statute tools, so the guidance is sufficient.

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