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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact not in structured data — 'Filters combine with AND' — which changes how an agent composes queries. It omits pagination/return-shape notes, so not 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 with the search capability front-loaded and the key routing hint last; no filler, every clause 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?

Seven optional params with full schema coverage plus annotations covering safety — the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Return fields are unspecified (no output schema), but for a list endpoint the shape is predictable enough that this is a minor gap.

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 all seven parameters are already documented. The description only restates the filter dimensions (and uses 'jurisdiction' where the schema says 'state'), adding little beyond the schema; 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 concrete verb+resource ('Search or list legislators'), names the endpoint, and enumerates the filter dimensions, making it trivially distinguishable from get_legislator and list_session_legislators.

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?

Explicitly identifies the workflow role: 'This is how you turn a name into the people_id that get_legislator needs,' naming the sibling and the condition that selects it. That is a precise when-to-use rule, not mere context.

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