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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that only the current edition is published online with no historical versions, that history notes are inconsistently present, that Title 97 is out of scope, and that access is keyless. It also describes what comes back (statutory text, heading, optional history note) despite no output schema.

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 action and citation examples, then scoped limits. It runs long as a single block and the parenthetical asides about Titles 6 and 20 are illustrative rather than load-bearing, but no sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter, annotation-covered read tool this is comprehensive: coverage boundaries (Title 97), versioning constraints (current edition only), and likely return content are all stated, leaving no significant unknown an agent would need before calling.

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 already documents the dash-separated title-chapter-section format and the decimal-title case. The description still adds value by listing accepted surface forms ("6-2-101", "W.S. 6-2-101", "§ 6-2-101") that the schema does not show, reducing input-format failures.

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 — retrieve the full text of a Wyoming Statutes section by citation — and immediately grounds it with concrete citation examples mapped to subject matter (6-2-101 murder, 20-1-105 divorce). This is clearly a citation lookup, functionally distinct from the sibling wy_search keyword tool.

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 case ("Use for 'what does W.S. 6-2-101 say' or to check a Wyoming statute a case or contract relies on") and excludes the Constitution by citation scheme. It never names wy_search as the alternative for non-citation lookups, so routing in the other direction is left implicit.

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