Search RCW citations

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals a non-obvious constraint: the tool matches only citations, not keywords, because there is no public full-text API. The example output format ('9A.36.011, 9A.36.021') also sets expectations for what the tool returns.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first, followed by the critical caveat and a practical next-step instruction. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema details.

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 search tool with no output schema and only two well-documented parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's scope, its built-in limitation, an example of expected behavior, and how to use its results with get_section. There are no obvious missing behavioral or usage details.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with clear descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds extra semantic value by emphasizing that the query must be a citation string, not a keyword, and by illustrating the kind of partial match intended with an example mapping.

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 opens with 'Find RCW citations matching a partial citation string'—a specific verb and resource—making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it matches citations, not keywords, and by instructing to feed results into get_section.

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 usage guidance: it tells the agent when to use the tool (partial citation lookup) and, critically, when not to use it ('free-text words like "assault" return no results'). It also provides a follow-up action ('Feed results into get_section'), which is helpful for correct tool selection and chaining.

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