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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that matching is literal full-text, not semantic, that an empty result yields found:false, that results are ranked with citation/heading/excerpt, and that the service is keyless. These are exactly the operational traits that affect how an agent should phrase a query and interpret a miss.

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, scope, and the sibling handoff are front-loaded in the first two sentences. Slightly dense with the parenthetical MCA/Rule 6 cross-reference and example phrases duplicated from the schema example, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Covers the full decision surface for a two-parameter search tool: what it searches, how queries are matched, what comes back, what an empty result looks like, and where to go for full text. An output schema exists, so further return-value detail would be redundant.

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 real meaning to the query parameter by prescribing topic-phrase formulation and supplying example phrasings. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given it is already documented.

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 Montana Code Annotated BY TOPIC or keyword rather than citation') and immediately contrasts itself with citation-based lookup. The scope ('all 54 MCA titles') and the handoff target (mt_code_section) make it unambiguously distinguishable from its sibling.

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 says to use topic/keyword phrases rather than citations, gives three representative queries, and names the alternative tool plus the condition for calling it ('call mt_code_section with a result's citation for the full text'). The when-not is implied but the when is fully spelled out.

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