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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds critical behavioral detail the annotations cannot: coverage varies by year, with full text 2019+, PDF-only 2004–2018, chapter PDF links for 2016–2018 and archive directories for earlier years. It also notes keyless access and what is returned, which materially affects how an agent should call and interpret it.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and the year-coverage caveats and usage examples are densely informative with little waste. It is somewhat long and parenthetical-heavy, but nearly every clause carries necessary behavioral or routing information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so ('Returns the archived text, caption and the history line as printed that year'), plus coverage limits and the diff-against-current use case. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse year note by explaining the practical consequence of year selection — full text, PDF link, or directory depending on era — which clarifies what the parameter actually yields.

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 text of a WAC section') with the essential qualifier AS IT STOOD at the end of a PAST YEAR, from a named source (the Legislature's annual WAC archive). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wa_wac_section by contrasting archived vs current 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?

Gives concrete use cases ('what did WAC 314-55-010 say in 2021', 'check which version of a rule applied on a date') and names the alternative (wa_wac_section for current text), making the routing decision unambiguous.

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