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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: result fields (text_last_changed, last_amended_year, effective_date, status, successor), corpus_currency, and the operative-date caveat that text is the held edition rather than the law on every date. However, it does not describe result ordering, pagination beyond limit, or how source coverage is surfaced in the response, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Core purpose and the state/kind routing are front-loaded, and every sentence carries actionable content. It is somewhat dense and leans on all-caps emphasis plus a long parenthetical, but the length is justified by the multi-jurisdiction behavior it must convey.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, jurisdiction resolution, result currency fields, and the operative-date pitfall. Nothing essential for correct invocation or result interpretation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning on top of it: examples of state codes, the rule/statute semantics of kind, the conditional use of kinds, and citation-vs-topic query examples. It also clarifies that as_of belongs to get_statute/check_citation rather than this tool, which prevents a common misuse.

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 (Search) and resource (statutes, court rules, codes) with explicit scope (every U.S. state + federal). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_cases, find_authority, and get_statute, which retrieve other document types or a single known provision.

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 explicit when-to-use routing: pass state for one jurisdiction, kind to scope to rule vs statute, kinds only when state is absent, and the default is Florida-only. It also names alternatives for the as_of workflow (get_statute, check_citation), so the agent knows where operative-date lookups belong.

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