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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: matches are against official chapter/section catchlines (~20,400 sections), NOT full statutory prose, because Idaho has no keyless full-text API. It also discloses the return content (citations + catchlines) and keyless access.

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?

Purpose and the topic-vs-citation distinction are front-loaded, which is ideal. The parenthetical asides ('verified live', 'no documented contract') are slightly verbose but justify the catchline-only limitation, so they mostly earn their place.

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, yet the description explains what is returned (citations and catchlines) and the follow-up step (id_statute for full text). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 schema already documents both 'query' and 'limit'. The description mirrors the query example ('landlord security deposit') but adds no syntax, format, or behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Idaho Statutes) and immediately scopes it to topic/keyword rather than citation. It explicitly names the sibling id_statute as the full-text path, so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Provides explicit routing: use this for topic/keyword lookup, then 'call id_statute with a citation for the full text.' It even clarifies the input style with concrete example queries, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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