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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral load. It usefully discloses the return contents (codes, sections, bill links, edition) and the dual-endpoint mode switch, but says nothing about authorization, rate limits, pagination, or how large a state's code list can be.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and ending with the call-first instruction. Slightly dense because it packs two endpoint behaviors plus a cross-reference into one description, but 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does, listing codes, sections, bill links and edition. Combined with the routing to get_statute, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though auth and pagination context is absent.

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% for the single state parameter, so the format is already handled. The description goes beyond it by explaining the consequence of passing state — it returns that state's codes and the code_id values consumed by get_statute — which adds real semantic value.

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 verb and resource — which jurisdictions' codified law is loaded plus size and currency, and it names the backing endpoints. It is slightly blurred because the same tool does double duty (coverage at /v1/statutes/coverage and code listing at /v1/statutes/codes), so the agent must infer a mode switch rather than a single clean purpose.

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?

'Call this first to know whether a state's statutes are available' gives explicit ordering and a clear condition for calling it. It also points to get_statute as the downstream consumer, though it never names alternatives like search_statutes or get_bill_statutes for comparison.

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