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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the return includes a haveny.co article URL as the first line, and instructs the agent to include it as a clickable markdown link without summarizing it away. This goes beyond annotations.

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 two sentences plus an IMPORTANT note. It is front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second sentence gives usage guidance, then a critical behavioral instruction. No word is wasted.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, when to use, and the crucial instruction about the URL. It mentions 'plain-English summary plus links' but does not detail the full return structure. However, the instruction about the first line provides some structure, making it fairly complete.

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 describes the 'query' parameter well. The description repeats the same information (section number or topic) without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool looks up California Davis-Stirling Civil Code or Corporations Code sections and returns a plain-English summary and links. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_fine_legality or search_hoa_knowledge by specifying the scope (statute lookup by section number or topic).

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: when the user mentions a specific section number (e.g., §5855) or asks 'what does Civil Code X say'. It provides format examples. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the sibling tools have different purposes, so the guidance is clear.

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