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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behaviour. The description adds a genuine scope constraint (2017–2026 coverage window) but otherwise spends its text on return fields that the output schema likely covers, and it does not mention pagination, result limits, or how versions are ordered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope window comes early and the output fields follow compactly. It could be tightened by omitting return-field detail already present in the output schema, but it is efficient overall.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The main gap is that the sole required argument is undocumented and there is no routing guidance among the many ic_* siblings.

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 one required parameter, section_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description refers to 'a section' but never explains the expected identifier format or how a section_id is constructed, leaving the agent to guess the required input syntax.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (versions of an Indiana Code section) and its scope (2017–2026, distinct versions with effective dates). It is distinguishable from ic_get_section by emphasising historical versions, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the output description: an agent can infer this is for retrieving version history rather than the current section text. However, it never states when to use this instead of ic_get_section, ic_get_act, or ic_resolve_citation, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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