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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety, so the bar is lower; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: matching is against chapter catchlines only (942 across 47 titles), NOT full statutory text or per-section catchlines, and akleg.gov exposes neither keylessly. It also discloses the return shape and that it is keyless.

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 action and its scope, and every sentence carries information (matching scope, limitation, return, follow-up). It is dense with parentheticals and em-dashes, which costs a little readability but no sentence 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 still explains what is returned (matching title/chapter and the chapter catchline) and the critical scope limitation. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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%, so the schema already documents both query and limit (default/max). The description only restates the topic-search intent and example queries, which the schema also carries, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Alaska Statutes) with the precise mode of access: BY TOPIC or keyword rather than citation. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the ak_statute sibling, which an agent can act on without opening either schema.

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?

Names the condition that selects this tool (topic/keyword search) versus the alternative (ak_statute with a full citation for actual text). Gives concrete query examples and states the follow-up path, leaving nothing to inference.

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