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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that filters rely on index labels, can exclude relevant pages, and that no results does not prove no law exists. It also warns that results may include historical versions, bill text, agency guidance, and third-party reproductions, and instructs verification of issuer, jurisdiction, status, and version.

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 front-loaded and every section has a purpose: scope, guidance, filter caveats, return format, verification, and alternatives. It is slightly repetitive in warning twice that no results does not mean no law exists, which keeps it from being maximally concise.

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 seven-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape (position, title, URL, snippet), the reliability caveats, the filtering limitations, and the follow-up tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 documents all seven parameters, including the enum and jurisdiction pattern. The description adds useful operational meaning by explaining that filters narrow by jurisdiction, court, court type, cited law or case, and site, and by warning that filtered searches can miss relevant pages.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: searching US federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, codes, court opinions, and government publications. It distinguishes the tool from general web search by tying it to legal or regulatory questions needing primary 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?

It explicitly names when to use it versus alternatives: use general search for non-US questions or missing coverage, and use firecrawl_scrape for a known URL or additional page context. It also states a prerequisite behavior: clarify missing jurisdiction or ambiguous as-of date before identifying the governing rule.

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