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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational facts: it is 'Keyless' (no auth/API key needed) and returns a fixed, complete set of 94 titles, useful for knowing the result is exhaustive. It stops short of describing ordering or payload shape, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 short sentences: what it returns, a concrete example, then the routing rule. No filler, and the core capability is front-loaded.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so — an enumerated list of titles paired with official names. Combined with annotations covering safety and the trivial zero-parameter schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 zero parameters (empty object schema, 100% coverage), so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies a single no-argument call, though it does not say so explicitly.

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 — 'List all 94 titles of the Oklahoma Statutes with their official names' — with concrete examples of the mapping (Title 21 = Crimes and Punishments). The bounded count (94) and the subject-to-title framing make it immediately distinguishable from ok_search and ok_statute.

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 names the selection condition ('when you know the subject but not the title number'), names the alternative ('call this or ok_search'), and states the anti-pattern it prevents ('before guessing a citation'). An agent has a clear routing rule without opening any schema.

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