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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'from GPS's public mirror' to signal source/authority and 'full text' to signal scope, but doesn't describe error behavior or response format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 total: the first states the tool's behavior, the second gives the key formatting rule, and the third provides examples. No filler, and the most important context is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent getter, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, where the data originates, and how to format the citation. It stops just short of a perfect score because there is no output schema and no mention of edge cases such as missing or invalid sections.

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%, and the description fully compensates by defining the `section` parameter as a bare citation without the 'O.C.G.A. §' prefix and giving three concrete examples. This is exactly the level of detail an agent needs to construct a valid call.

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?

Description opens with 'Full text of a section of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated', specifying a clear verb, resource, and scope. Unlike sibling tools focused on facilities, contraband, or mortality, this one targets a distinct legal-code resource, so an agent can distinguish it without extra inference.

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?

There's no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the description clearly implies it is for retrieving full OCGA section text via GPS's mirror. It provides the citation format for the one parameter, though it doesn't state when to prefer this over search_site or get_page.

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