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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: constitutional amendments cite the constitution (not loaded), unpublished measure text returns nothing, the list is a floor, only loaded state codes resolve to section text, and links carry resolved:true with text versus bare citation otherwise. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read tool.

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?

Purpose and endpoint are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the caveats follow in descending importance. The prose is dense with several chained clauses, but no sentence 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values itself, and it does: resolved:true with text versus a bare citation, plus the empty-result conditions. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the state param is constrained by which codes are loaded, and the number must be as served by get_ballot_measure. It clarifies the resolution behavior tied to those params rather than restating the schema.

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: the sections of existing law a ballot measure amends, creates, repeals or cites, with the exact endpoint. This distinguishes it from get_bill_statutes (bills) and get_statute (single section) without opening either 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 use case ('which laws does Prop X / Question Y change') and routes to list_statute_coverage for the coverage question. It stops short of naming get_bill_statutes as the sibling for non-measure legislation, leaving the bill-vs-measure boundary to inference from the name.

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