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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds only that answers come 'with cited excerpts', which is useful return-shape context, but says nothing about accuracy limits, whether the answer is legal advice, latency, or what happens when no matching document exists.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and the source corpus as a scoping clause; nothing is redundant. It is dense but every element earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only, idempotent query tool with no output schema, the description supplies the domain scope and the key return characteristic (cited excerpts). What remains missing — behavior on no-match or out-of-domain questions — is minor at this complexity level.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the 'Name the facility, agency, rule or topic' guidance and the en/es enum, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any syntax, granularity, or phrasing advice beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Answer a question') plus the exact corpus scope: Colorado Code of Regulations, DOC administrative regulations, county jail policies, and state agency documents. That is far more informative than the title alone, though there are no siblings to be distinguished from, so it stops short of the top tier.

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 enumerated source corpus implicitly tells the agent what kinds of questions belong here (policy/regulation questions in Colorado corrections), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, no mention of what happens for out-of-scope questions, and no alternatives are named.

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