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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: matching is against official section catchlines and chapter names, NOT full statutory body text. It also flags 'Keyless' (no auth required) and previews the return payload, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and method, then coverage limits, then return/hand-off. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 fills the gap by describing what comes back (citations, catchlines, chapter names) and the next step for full text. Combined with annotations covering safety, 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lifts this by constraining the query semantically (topic/keywords, not citations) and giving three concrete example queries, which steers an agent away from passing a citation string into the wrong tool.

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+resource (search the New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978) and immediately narrows the method (by topic or keyword rather than citation). It distinguishes itself from siblings nm_statute and nm_chapters by naming the follow-up tool and the corpus it searches.

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 when you have a topic/keyword but no citation, then 'call nm_statute with a result's citation for the full text.' The when-not (full statutory text) is covered by that hand-off to the alternative tool.

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