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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: matches are limited to official headings (not body text), the service is keyless, and it spans 51+ titles. It stops short of describing result shape, ordering, or pagination behavior, so not a 5.

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?

The two operating modes are front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information (mode semantics, heading-only limitation, follow-up tool, keyless access). It is slightly dense with parentheticals, but nothing is redundant with the schema and there is 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?

For a 3-param, zero-required search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers modes, scope, limits, and the handoff to dc_statute. It leaves the agent to infer return fields and result ordering, a minor gap given how much else is specified.

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 goes further by explaining the interaction between "query" and "title" (filter vs. standalone listing) and illustrating queries with realistic examples. The limit parameter's dual default/max behavior is left to the schema, which already documents it.

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?

The description names a specific verb (search/browse) and resource (District of Columbia Code), and explicitly separates two modes: heading search via "query" and chapter/section listing via "title". It also names the sibling tool dc_statute as the follow-up for full text, so an agent can place it in the toolset 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use branching: pass "query" to search catchlines, pass "title" alone to browse, combine both to scope within a title, and call dc_statute with a result citation for the statute body. The one meaningful exclusion is stated too — heading matching only, because the DC Council does not publish full-text statutory search.

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