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

Annotations already declare it a safe, idempotent, open-world read, and the description still adds non-obvious behavior: matching is against section/chapter catchlines only, there is no full-text search, coverage is derived from chapter PDF tables of contents and is best-effort, and the service is keyless. That is exactly the kind of limitation an agent needs before trusting results.

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 purpose, then the important catchline caveat, then the filter, then return/next-step guidance. The long nested parenthetical is dense but each clause carries real information; slightly heavy packaging is the only knock.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description describes what is returned (matching citations, catchlines, title/chapter context) and points to the follow-up tool for full text. For a 3-parameter search tool this leaves nothing an agent needs 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, but the description adds semantic depth beyond the schema: it explains what the query actually matches against, gives several topic examples, and clarifies that title is an optional single-Title (1-22) restriction. It doesn't add format or syntax detail, so it stops short of 5.

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 and resource ("Search the Guam Code Annotated") and immediately scopes it as topic/keyword rather than citation, which cleanly separates it from the citation-driven gu_statute sibling. Concrete example queries make the intended input unambiguous.

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 tells the agent to use this for topic/keyword lookup and to route to gu_statute with a citation for full text, giving both the when and the alternative. The optional Title filter condition is also stated.

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