Get RCW section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns full text, includes caption and history/notes, and indicates the data source (app.leg.wa.gov). It does not describe error handling or latency, but for a simple read operation, this is sufficient transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Return the full text...'), followed by specifics on included content and the source. There is no redundant or filler information; every sentence contributes meaning.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what the return contains, and the data source. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., plain text vs HTML) or error behavior, but for the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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?

The schema describes the 'cite' parameter with examples, and the description also includes an example citation. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter meaning is fully documented. The description adds marginal value by integrating the cite format into the context, but does not go beyond the schema's detail.

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 states the tool returns the full text of an RCW section by citation, with specific examples like 9A.36.021. It explicitly lists included components (caption, statutory text, history/notes), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as search and cite_affected by focusing on retrieving a known section's full text.

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 description gives clear context: use this when you have a section citation and need the full text. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply search is for finding sections and cite_affected for affected citations. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide.

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