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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is added context — and it delivers: newest-first ordering, exact coverage boundary (NY Senate, 2025 onward), and the fields each row carries including the official PDF. It does not mention result-size behavior or paging semantics beyond what the schema states, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it is, what a row contains, how coverage is bounded, then two routing pointers. Front-loaded with the resource identity and no filler.

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 usefully enumerates the row fields, so an agent knows what comes back. The one gap is the mismatch between the stated NY-Senate-only coverage and the presence of state/chamber parameters that imply broader jurisdiction — worth a sentence of explanation, but not enough to block correct invocation.

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 all six parameters (limit, offset, since, until, state, chamber) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'newest first' ordering, which implicitly informs how since/until/offset behave, but it never explains why state/chamber filters exist when coverage is stated as NY-only.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Verbatim stenographic records of chamber floor sessions'), plus the backing endpoint and the row shape returned (date, session type, length, official PDF). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_floor_transcript (single record) and list_hearings (different resource), so an agent can pick 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?

Names both alternatives and the condition that selects each: 'Read one with get_floor_transcript' and 'For committee hearings use list_hearings.' The coverage statement ('the New York Senate, every sitting from 2025 on') also tells the agent when this tool will return nothing useful.

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