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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the 'Keyless' note (no API key required) and the exact cascade of what is returned at each level (titles, chapters with captions, sections with captions and subheadings).

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 behavior and built as a single efficient sentence with parallel clauses. The parenthetical agency examples are useful domain anchors but arguably the longest tangent; still, no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description describes the return shape at every level (titles with agency, chapters with captions, sections with captions/subheadings). Combined with the usage routing and keyless note, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the schema already spells out the cite semantics, so baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly further by anchoring the cite values in domain meaning (title-to-agency mappings like 296 = Labor and Industries), which helps an agent interpret what a title number represents.

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 (Browse) and resource (WAC structure) and explicitly decomposes the three operating modes (no cite / title / chapter). It distinguishes itself from the sibling wa_wac_section by naming it directly, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 two concrete use cases: find which chapter covers a topic before calling wa_wac_section, or enumerate every rule in a chapter. It names the sibling alternative and the condition that routes to it, leaving little to inference.

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