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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a 12 000-character cap on returned text and the fallback behavior for judgments, where 'section' is matched as a paragraph number or phrase. It doesn't cover pagination/truncation signalling when the cap is hit, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, then the workflow and the judgment/cap caveat. Every clause carries information, though the single long second sentence is denser than ideal.

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 shoulders the return-value burden by describing judgment text, the phrase/paragraph matching mode, and the 12 000-character cap. What remains unstated is what happens on truncation or when an unknown doc_id/section is supplied.

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 description's parameter guidance ('give the doc_id and the section reference it returned') largely restates the schema's own doc_id and section descriptions. The only marginal addition is reinforcing that section is judgment-optional, which the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Full text of one document section from the GetLawED library') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling legal_library_search by framing itself as the follow-up that reads what search found. An agent can tell it apart from legal_library_search and legal_verify_citations without opening any schema.

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?

It states the precise workflow condition — 'use it to read and quote the exact provision found by legal_library_search' — and tells the caller what to pass from that step ('give the doc_id and the section reference it returned'). The alternative tool is named and the selection condition is unambiguous.

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