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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral detail: all non-stopword keywords must match (AND semantics), topic matches heading words, results carry extracted text plus Markdown tables, topic path, revision, page numbers and a CDE citation, navigation.continuation supplies the next request, and no login or provider key is needed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core search purpose and modes, then supporting detail; nearly every clause carries information. It is a dense semicolon-chained block though, and the citation/return-detail sentence could be trimmed since an output schema exists.

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 an 8-param, all-optional tool with an output schema, the description covers the search modes, adjacency navigation, match semantics, and what results contain. The unexplained offset/client_id parameters and the opaque phrase "topic filters heading words" are the only material omissions.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for six of eight params: query semantics (short accounting terms), topic (heading-word filter), procedure number, chunk_id format/use, direction (previous/next adjacent reading), and limit (1–10). offset and client_id are never explained, leaving a real gap for a zero-coverage 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search California School Accounting Manual (CSAM 2024)") and enumerates the three access modes: keywords/topic, procedure number, or chunk_id. That clearly separates it from siblings like sacs_explain_code or sacs_get_csam_related, which do not search the manual 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?

Gives concrete usage guidance: use chunk_id with direction=previous/next plus limit to read adjacent chunks, and "Use short accounting terms rather than a long question." It also warns that later correspondence is excluded and to read citations for surrounding context. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., when to prefer sacs_get_csam_related), so it doesn't reach a 5.

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