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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description adds critical interpretive context: the label is DOJ's not MORVS's, the two pages differ, removed entries include a linked release and reason, county 287(g) and state designations can coexist, and non-matches do not mean nonexistence. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the caveats are substantive rather than filler. However, the description is somewhat long and could be tightened by merging related interpretive notes.

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 read-only, two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers all the caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly. The absence of an output schema is offset by the explanation of what entries and non-matches mean.

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 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters, including the enum and substring behavior. The description reinforces the default version but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('DOJ’s current list page or its August 2025 announcement') and names the two variants. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as sanctuary_state_reports, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains the two versions and the default, which implies when to use each, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives to sibling tools. Usage is therefore implied rather than spelled out.

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