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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them by noting it is 'Keyless' (no auth required) and a discovery/routing aid. It does not describe the response shape, but for a zero-parameter list tool that is minor.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and examples, then the routing guidance. Every sentence contributes, though the examples sentence could be trimmed.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description fully covers what it returns (official chapter names) and when to reach for it. Annotations carry the safety profile and no output schema exists, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there are no semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inventing parameter detail.

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 (List) and resource (chapters of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978), and illustrates with concrete examples (Ch. 30 = Criminal Offenses, Ch. 40 = Domestic Affairs). This clearly distinguishes it from nm_search and nm_statute, which retrieve statutes rather than the chapter taxonomy.

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 frames itself as routing help 'for when you know the subject but not the chapter number' and names the alternative (nm_search) to call before guessing a citation. This gives both the condition that selects this tool and the sibling to consider alongside it.

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