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

The read-only annotations already establish safety and non-destructiveness, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about the GET endpoints and the coverage fields returned. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but those gaps are minor for a read-only metadata 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?

The description is three tight sentences with no filler, and it front-loads the purpose before describing the state-specific behavior and recommended first-call usage.

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 still explains what is returned: jurisdiction coverage, code and section counts, bill links, edition currency, and state-specific code IDs. That is sufficient for a one-optional-parameter read-only tool.

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 the state parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining that passing state lists that state's codes and produces code_id values consumed by get_statute.

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 states a specific resource and scope: which jurisdictions' codified law is loaded, with per-state counts and currency. It distinguishes the tool from get_statute by explaining that state queries return code_id values used by those lookups.

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?

It explicitly says to call this first to check whether a state's statutes are available, and explains that passing state switches to listing that state's codes. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the related get_statute dependency.

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