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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: the row returns conditions plus source passages stamped with official source and a checked date, and it explicitly disclaims decision-making authority. Missing only pagination/size or fallback behavior for sparse topics.

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 return contract, then the topic menu, then the scope disclaimer. The topic list is long but its parenthetical glosses carry information the bare enum does not; trimming the glosses would cost comprehension.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return payload (conditions, passages, sources, checked date) and the scope limit. It does not say what happens for a valid state/topic pair with no published row, which is the one operational gap.

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% with both parameters enum-constrained, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond raw enum keys by glossing each topic in plain language ('who inherits without a will, from each state intestacy statute'), which helps an agent pick the right topic value.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Return the complete published state row') and scopes it to conditions and source passages with provenance metadata. The enumerated topic list makes clear what the row can contain, distinguishing it from narrative tools like search_facts or after_death_deadlines.

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?

Usage context is clear: fetch a reference row for a given state+topic, and the closing sentence carves out what it is NOT for (eligibility decisions, estate shares, individual legal results). No sibling tool is named as an alternative, so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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