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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value annotations cannot: "Keyless" (no API credential required) and the fact that it returns the statutory text rather than a summary or metadata.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The citation example, keyless note and usage triggers each carry information an agent needs.

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 correctly notes that it "Returns the statutory text," so the return shape is understood, and the single required parameter is fully documented. It omits failure behavior (e.g., invalid or nonexistent citations), a minor gap for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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 schema property already supplies the "940.01"/"346.63" examples, so the description largely restates what the schema documents. The prefixed "Wis. Stat." form hints at the accepted citation shape but adds little beyond the structured field.

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 — retrieving the FULL TEXT of a Wisconsin Statutes section by citation — and even illustrates the citation format with a concrete example (Wis. Stat. 940.01). No sibling tool does statute lookup, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 frames the use cases: answering "what does Wisconsin Statute 940.01 say" and checking a statute a case relies on. There is no named alternative tool or exclusion, but no sibling overlaps this domain, so guidance is clear though not exhaustive.

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