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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the return payload (statutory text, heading, 'History:' amendment line), the data source and edition, and that it is keyless. It does not say what happens for a malformed or nonexistent citation, which is the one behavioral 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?

The core action and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by examples, accepted formats, and return contents in a logical order. It is dense and runs long as a single block, and the format-variant enumeration partly duplicates the examples rather than using a compact pattern description.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (text, heading, history line) and the source edition, plus the keyless auth situation. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only error/not-found behavior is left unaddressed.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by enumerating four accepted citation variants ('14 VIC 922', 'V.I. Code Ann. tit. 14, § 922', 'Title 14, Section 922') that the schema's single-format description does not cover. No guidance on partial or invalid citations, but the format tolerance is real added value.

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 ('Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Virgin Islands Code') and pins down jurisdiction and edition (USVI, V.I.C., 2026 edition). Concrete citation examples ('14 V.I.C. § 922', '11A V.I.C. § 2-201') make the target unmistakable and distinguish it from a general search tool.

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 phrase 'by citation' implies the tool is used when you already know the citation, which implicitly separates it from vi_search, but no sibling is named and no when-not condition is given. An agent with a topic query rather than a citation gets no explicit routing hint toward vi_search or vi_titles.

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