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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: keyless/no-auth, data currency tied to the same 2020-11-06 release as ar_statute, and the critical catchline-only coverage limitation. It also states the return shape (citations + catchlines). This is genuinely additive 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the catchline scope, and every sentence carries information. The catchline-only caveat is stated twice (implicitly in the opening line and again explicitly), which is mildly redundant, but each sentence still earns its place.

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 compensates by describing what is returned (matching citations and catchlines) and the natural next step (call ar_statute with a citation). Coverage limits, auth model, and data vintage are all present, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both parameters including the limit default and max. The description adds illustrative query examples ("capital murder", "security deposit", "concealed carry") that clarify the intended query granularity beyond the schema's single example.

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 (Arkansas Code) with precise scope: BY TOPIC over section catchlines, not citation. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ar_statute by naming it as the full-text follow-up, so an agent can route 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (ar_statute) and the condition that selects it (when you have a citation and want full text). It also states the when-not-to-use case: queries that never appear in a catchline return no matches even if the topic is covered in a section body, so the agent knows when this tool will fail to find relevant material.

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