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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: it searches statutory body text and not just captions (so headings need not match), it names the returned fields (citations, headings, effective dates, relevancy), and it discloses "Keyless" i.e. no auth setup required.

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 purpose, then a worked example with a real citation, then the return shape, then the follow-up tool, then the keyless note. Four tight sentences with no filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input style, result fields, auth, and next step. 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by clarifying that `query` takes a topic or keywords rather than a citation, which prevents a common misuse of the parameter. It does not add anything about `limit` beyond what the schema documents.

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 Oklahoma Statutes") and immediately scopes it to TOPIC/keyword rather than citation, which cleanly separates it from the citation-lookup sibling ok_statute and from ok_titles. An agent can select it without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes: use this for topic/keyword lookup, then "Call ok_statute with a result's citation for the full text." That is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it, and concrete example queries ("landlord", "concealed carry permit") show the expected input style.

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