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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the returned payload (rule text, caption, WSR filing history with filed/effective dates, cited RCW authority), documents the failure mode for repealed or nonexistent sections (found:false via site redirect), and notes the tool is keyless (no auth).

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 verb+resource, then layered detail, then routing guidance at the end. Dense but nearly every clause carries information (examples, return contents, error behavior, alternatives); the parenthetical glosses on two example citations are the only slightly expendable material.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — and it does, down to the WSR history fields and the found:false negative case. For a single-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret the response.

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 single parameter's format, example citations, and letter-suffix edge cases are already documented in the schema. The description's example citations are illustrative of the resource rather than adding new syntax or constraint meaning, so the 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 and resource ('Get the CURRENT FULL TEXT of a section of the Washington Administrative Code ... by citation'), names the jurisdiction and acronym expansion, and gives concrete example citations. It explicitly distinguishes itself from wa_rcw_section, wa_wac_archived_section, and wa_wac_search before the agent ever opens 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use cases in natural user phrasing ('what does WAC 296-800-110 say', checking a regulation an agency decision cites) and routes to the correct alternative for each adjacent intent: statutes, archived years, topic search. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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