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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: it searches section body text rather than captions, runs live against the legislature's index, surfaces sections whose titles omit the term, and requires no API key. Missing only latency/rate-limit or result-ordering behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core distinction (topic vs. citation) before the behavioral details. Slightly longer than needed — the capitalized emphasis and "confirmed to surface..." phrasing could be tightened — 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (citations, titles, snippets), what it does not return (full text — defer to al_statute), auth requirements (keyless), and the underlying corpus. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and follow up correctly 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% (default 10, max 25 for limit; query example given), so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by clarifying that query is topical/free-text rather than a citation string, which is the main way an agent could misuse this parameter.

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 (search the Code of Alabama 1975) and immediately delimits the mode: by topic/keyword rather than citation. Concrete example queries ("landlord security deposit", "concealed pistol permit") make the intended input shape unmistakable and distinguish it from a citation-lookup 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?

Explicitly contrasts the two access paths: topic/keyword search here versus citation lookup via al_statute for full text. That is both a when-to-use and a when-to-use-something-else, with the sibling named and the follow-up action specified.

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