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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail: the first line carries a haveny.co URL and the agent must relay it as a clickable markdown link. That output-handling contract is real value beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the when-to-use rule, then the critical output instruction. Everything earns its place, though the final sentence is slightly long and the 'IMPORTANT' block could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return contract (count, fields, first-line URL) and adds a downstream-relay instruction. For a two-parameter read tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 description coverage is 100%, so 'query' (weighted over title, keywords, statute citations) and 'max_results' are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail; baseline 3 applies. Note a schema-internal oddity the description doesn't resolve: maximum=5 but max_results text and the description both cap at 3.

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 specific verb and resource ('Free-text search across Haveny's California HOA articles') plus the return shape (up to three articles with title, link, topic). The closing note also hints at the scope boundary relative to the statute/rights/obligations siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule: broad questions or when no other tool fits. It stops short of naming the alternatives (lookup_hoa_statute, get_board_obligations, get_homeowner_rights) or stating when-not-to-use, which would make routing fully deterministic.

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