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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: matching occurs against official section/chapter catchlines rather than prose, NH does not publish full-text RSA search (verified live), and landlord/tenant synonyms are auto-expanded with the expansion surfaced in `expanded_terms`. Lacks only rate/limit behavior or result ordering detail.

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 distinction (topic vs. citation) and the examples are immediately useful. Some parenthetical justification ('NH's own catchlines name the relationship by tenant almost exclusively... even for chapters about landlord obligations') is longer than needed, slightly diluting an otherwise dense description.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (matching citations and catchlines, plus `expanded_terms`), and it hands off the next step to nh_statute for full text. Nothing needed to call or chain this tool 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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what the query actually matches (catchlines, not prose) and that landlord/tenant/lessor/lessee terms are silently expanded, which changes how an agent should phrase a query. The `limit` param is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (New Hampshire RSA) and immediately disambiguates scope: topic/catchline search, not citation lookup. It also names the sibling nh_statute as the citation path, so the 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?

Explicit routing: use this for topic/keyword queries ('landlord security deposit', 'concealed weapon permit'), then 'call nh_statute with a citation for the full text.' It also warns that this does not search full statutory prose, which prevents an agent from expecting text-match behavior.

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