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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world safety. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: revoked/reserved numbers return status 'revoked_or_reserved' rather than an error, adopted-text-only scope excludes proposed revisions, and it enumerates the returned components. It omits keyless confirmation in the description body – actually it does say 'Keyless.' Strong 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 verb+resource, then tight scoping clauses. Parenthetical asides and the sibling references are dense but each sentence carries a distinct routing or scoping fact. Slightly overloaded with nested asides but no 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?

Covers scope boundaries, output contents, error semantics, sibling differentiation, and auth model (keyless) for a 2-param reader with no output schema. Enough for an agent to call correctly and interpret the response, though it could note rate/usage expectations in one phrase.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic context beyond the schema: it explains that CALCRIM has no edition delta (unlike caci_lookup) which reframes the optional edition param, and it covers bracket/optional language in output. Slight bonus over the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Specific verb (Get) + resource (OFFICIAL CALCRIM text) + identifier format, with examples ('200', 'VF-200'). Explicitly differentiates from siblings caci_lookup (civil, has edition delta) and ca_ji_editions (archived PDFs), so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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?

States when to use ('what is the official jury instruction for first-degree murder', checking criminal charge elements) and when not to (proposed revisions, prior editions, civil instructions which belong to caci_lookup). Names the alternative tools for the excluded cases.

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