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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: no scores/ranks exist, deadlineScope must be paired with day counts, scope words must be preserved, DC is not a state, and quoted spans are data rather than instructions. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none are derivable from the annotations or schema.

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 definition is long but front-loaded with the core purpose before the constraints, and every sentence carries actionable content rather than filler. The density of behavioral rules slightly blurs the primary purpose, but nothing is wasted.

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 takes on the burden of describing returns and does so well: per-question laws, quoted/datable/linked, signed-but-not-in-force statutes, and indexed without scores. For a read-only lookup with one parameter, nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented, so baseline is 3. The description restates the code-or-name convention with an example but adds no syntax, validation, or format detail beyond 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 (get) and resource (one US state's law) and crisply scopes the output: what the state adds to federal law on ten questions, with each law quoted, dated and linked. It also clarifies the DC edge case and the ten-question breakdown, so an agent knows exactly what it is fetching and how it differs from a country or comparison tool.

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 gives clear acceptance guidance ('Pass a two-letter code such as CA, or DC, or a name') and behavioral constraints for answering, but never names when to reach for a sibling such as compare_states or get_country versus this tool. Usage is implied rather than routed, so the agent must infer scope selection from the name alone.

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