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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add relevant context. It adds 'Keyless' as a useful auth-related trait and clarifies that the return value is the full statutory text. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, resource, and jurisdiction. Every sentence adds value: the citation example, return value, auth note, and use cases are all useful. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-required-parameter read-only lookup, all needed context is present: jurisdiction, citation form, example, return value, and auth note. No output schema is required because the description clearly states the response is the statutory text.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the citation format and that 'Title is the part before the dash.' The description reinforces the format with the '18.2-32' example but does not add materially new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Code of Virginia,' which immediately identifies this as a Virginia statute retrieval tool. The example '18.2-32' and the phrase 'Returns the statutory text' confirm exactly what the tool does. Among siblings it is clearly unique, with no other tool targeting Virginia statutes.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use for "what does Virginia Code 18.2-32 say" or to check a Virginia statute a case relies on.' It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name an alternative, but the sibling set contains no comparable legal citation tool, so the guidance is adequate.

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