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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive profile, so description builds on that by disclosing the return content (statutory text plus heading) and the keyless (no auth) property. No mention of rate limits or pagination, but for a single-section lookup tool this is slight.

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?

Single dense sentence front-loads the core action; the citation example and use cases follow. Slightly packed but no wasted words — only minor cost from embedding an example inline.

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?

Given single-param schema at 100% coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what remains: what is returned (text + heading), keyless access, and trigger examples. A note on missing-section behavior or output length would earn a 5.

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% — the parameter's format (Title.chapter.section) and examples are fully documented in the schema. The description adds concrete citations (9A.32.030, 46.61.502) as anchor examples but no syntax beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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), resource (FULL TEXT of RCW section), and scope (Washington state statutes). Singular and unambiguous among siblings like search_within or ask_pipeworx, none of which retrieve statutory text.

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 names use cases ("what does RCW 46.61.502 say", "text of RCW 49.60.180", checking a statute a case relies on) and the trigger condition (a citation is known). No sibling offers this; routing is clear.

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