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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: matching is against official catchlines, not statutory prose, because Hawaii publishes no full-text search, plus keyless access. Missing only rate/result-shape details, which the schema and return sentence largely cover.

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 core verb/scope and the key limitation, with no wasted sentences. Slightly dense with parentheticals ("verified live", the chapter 521 aside), but each adds orientation rather than noise.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description still says what comes back (matching citations and catchlines) and what the natural next step is, so an agent can act without further information.

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 earns above baseline by explaining what the query string is matched against (chapter and section catchlines) and by giving illustrative queries. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its inline description.

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 (Hawaii Revised Statutes), and immediately narrows scope to topic/keyword rather than citation, which cleanly separates it from the sibling hi_statute. Concrete example queries and the catchline-only matching rule make the tool's behavior unmistakable.

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 routes the agent: use this by topic, then "call hi_statute with a citation for the full text." That is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it, so no inference is required.

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