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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing that the text is unofficial, not legal advice, and that year must correspond to a loaded edition with a documented default — behavioral facts annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, action and accepted ID formats front-loaded, parameter behavior second, caveat last. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both parameters plus the unofficial-source caveat are covered. Minor gap: no note on not-found behavior or available years.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: both section_id formats are demonstrated ('10-1.5-1-1' vs '10 IAC 1.5-1-1') and year's default is explained. It falls short only in not indicating which editions/years are actually loaded.

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 resource and action: the text of a single IAC section, with two accepted section_id formats given as examples. It is clearly distinguishable from search/browse siblings by being a single-section fetch, though it never names iac_search or iac_resolve_citation as alternatives.

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?

The only usage guidance is around the year parameter (omit for the edition labeled Current), which implicitly tells the agent when to supply it. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over iac_search or iac_resolve_citation, or what happens when a section is not in a loaded edition.

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