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

With the annotations covering the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), the description adds real context the annotations don't: it hits the Delaware General Assembly's live upstream search, requires no key, and returns citations/catchlines/chapter context rather than full text. It stops short of flagging latency or result-cap behavior beyond the schema's limit note.

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 and scope, and every element serves a routing or expectation-setting purpose. The parenthetical explaining that 'landlord' matches untitled sections is slightly redundant with the preceding clause, costing a bit of tightness.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return shape (matching citations, catchlines, chapter/title context) and pointing to the tool that yields full text. For a two-parameter, keyless search tool, nothing an agent needs to call 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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's three example phrases largely restate the schema's own example. It adds the useful nuance that queries are topical phrases, but says nothing about limit that the schema doesn't already say.

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 (full text of the Delaware Code), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling de_statute, which returns full text from a citation. The agent can distinguish the two tools 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?

Gives the use case (topic/keyword lookup) plus concrete example queries, and names the follow-on/alternative tool (de_statute) with the condition that selects it — having a citation. It also clarifies the full-text-vs-title distinction, which tells the agent why this tool finds things a title search would miss.

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