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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing a non-obvious failure mode: only states with loaded codes resolve to section text. It also explains the resolved:true marker and the degraded 'citation as written' fallback, which an agent would otherwise misread as a bug.

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?

Purpose and use case are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every clause adds information. The final sentence is dense and slightly run-on with its two-part resolved/not-resolved condition, but no sentence is 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?

For a 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (matching sections with headings and excerpts), the follow-up path, and the coverage limitation. It stops short of explaining result ordering, pagination behavior, or what to do when zero sections resolve.

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 75% with solid descriptions on q, code, and state, so the schema carries most of the load and the description adds little beyond restating 'state'. The undescriptioned limit parameter is never addressed, though its 1-100 bounds are self-explanatory from the schema.

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+resource ('Full-text search of a state's codified law') plus the endpoint, and immediately separates itself from the bill-search siblings by framing the query as 'what does the law say about X'. The follow-up mention of get_statute makes the search-then-fetch division of labor explicit.

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 two concrete use cases (asking what the law says, and locating the section a bill or ballot measure changes), names the alternative tool for the follow-up step (get_statute), and adds a critical prerequisite gate pointing at list_statute_coverage. When-not-to-use is implied by the coverage caveat rather than left to inference.

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