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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it enumerates the returned fields (WSR number, filing type, date filed, text link), states sort order ('Newest first'), and notes 'Keyless' (no auth required). Pagination/result-size limits are not mentioned, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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, then usage examples, then a one-word 'Keyless.' note — no filler sentences. Slightly dense due to the parenthetical enumeration of filing types, but each element contributes to correct invocation.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what it returns (field list), ordering, authentication profile ('Keyless'), and representative queries. Combined with annotations carrying the safety semantics, nothing material 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?

There is a single required parameter 'cite', and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents that it accepts a section ('296-800-110') or chapter ('296-800') form, and the examples reinforce this. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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 (List) and a precise resource (WSR rule-making filings affecting a WAC section/chapter), and reframes it as 'the amendment history as agency actions', which cleanly separates it from the content-oriented siblings (wa_wac_section, wa_wac_archived_section, wa_wac_browse). An agent can tell this is the filing-history tool and not the text-retrieval tool without opening the 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 concrete usage scenarios ('when was WAC 296-800-110 last amended', 'is there a pending proposal to change chapter 458-20 WAC', tracing a rule-making record) that map directly to the tool's scope. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use (e.g. 'for the current section text use wa_wac_section'), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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