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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things not in structured data: 'Keyless' (no authentication needed) and what the response contains (citations, headings, section URL). Only missing piece is pagination/ordering behavior, which is minor.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by examples, the return payload, and the next-step handoff. No filler and nothing repeated from the name/title.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description states what comes back (citations, headings, section URL), so the return value gap is closed. Combined with the keyless note and the as_statute handoff, an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the limit default and max. The description's query examples duplicate the schema's own example rather than adding new syntax guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (American Samoa Code Annotated) plus the mode of access (by topic/keyword rather than citation). It explicitly contrasts itself with citation-based lookup and names the related statute-fetching tool, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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?

Gives the selection rule (use this for topic/keyword queries, not citations), supplies three concrete query examples, and routes the agent forward: 'Call as_statute with a result's citation for the full text.' That is a complete when-to-use / what-next handoff.

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