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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: data is read from the measure's official text, unpublished text yields empty results, the list is a 'floor', and resolved:true distinguishes a section we hold from a bare citation. Doesn't cover pagination or ordering, but the annotation bar is already low 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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then caveats; every sentence carries information. The final sentence is dense and packs resolution semantics into one line, which hurts scanability slightly.

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, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by explaining the resolved:true/text pairing. Combined with the state-coverage caveat and empty-result condition, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description leans on that ('see list_statute_coverage', 'state whose code is loaded') without adding syntax or format detail. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'The sections of existing law a 2026 ballot measure amends, creates, repeals or cites', with the underlying endpoint given. This is clearly distinct from sibling get_statute (a single section) and get_bill_statutes (bills, not measures).

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 trigger phrase ('which laws does Prop X / Question Y change') and routes the agent to list_statute_coverage for the coverage question. It also states the cases where the tool returns nothing, which functions as a when-not-to-expect-results rule.

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