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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond that: it is 'Keyless' (no authentication required) and it 'Returns the statutory text and its heading' (output content). It does not describe rate limits or error behavior, but the added auth and return details are meaningful.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then layers examples, return details, auth note, and the sibling alternative in a compact, well-ordered paragraph. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 still explains what is returned ('statutory text and its heading'). It covers purpose, usage examples, authentication ('Keyless'), and the alternative tool for WAC. For a single-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is complete.

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 provides examples and the Title.chapter.section format for the 'section' parameter. The description's repeated citation examples ('RCW 9A.32.030 is first degree murder') do not add new syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get the FULL TEXT'), resource ('a section of the Revised Code of Washington'), and method ('by citation'). It also explicitly distinguishes the resource from agency rules, naming the sibling tool wa_wac_section for that case. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and does not cover.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use it with example queries ('what does RCW 46.61.502 say', 'text of RCW 49.60.180') and directly routes the alternative use case (Washington Administrative Code) to wa_wac_section. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over its closest sibling.

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