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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: archived editions are LINKED rather than text-extracted, only the current edition's text is available through the lookups, and the tool is keyless (no auth). A note on pagination/size of the archive list would push this higher.

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-loads the scope and pairs it with when-to-use guidance in four dense sentences with no filler. Slightly long, but every clause (alternative routing, linked-vs-extracted caveat, keyless) carries distinct information.

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, so the description must explain returns, and it does: current edition year/adoption date plus archived edition PDF links. Combined with the routing guidance and the linked-not-extracted caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 'set' parameter has a documented enum, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates CACI as civil and CALCRIM as criminal, which the schema already conveys, so a 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 (List) and resource (CURRENT edition year/adoption date and ARCHIVED edition PDF links) for two named instruction sets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from caci_lookup/calcrim_lookup, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening a 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 explicit triggers: when a caller needs a past year's edition (e.g. a trial under an older version) or wants to confirm which edition the lookup text comes from. It also names the alternatives (caci_lookup/calcrim_lookup) and delineates what they cover that this tool does not.

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