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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious traits annotations do not carry: it is keyless (no auth), Spanish-as-published text, only two codes are body-searchable, and every result is tagged with a result_type that governs the next step.

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?

Purpose and language constraint are front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences all carry load (tiers, result labels, routing). It is a dense run-on block rather than cleanly segmented lines, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description does the right work: it explains the two result types and their follow-up path, states the auth model and language, and scopes each search tier. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/ranking behavior is unspecified.

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 schema already documents both query and limit (default 10, max 30). The description reinforces that queries must be Spanish and supplies extra example terms, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 Puerto Rico statutes) plus exact scope: two search tiers, which corpora each covers, and what makes each match real (body-text vs catchline). The result_type labelling ('lpra_section' vs 'act') lets an agent distinguish output kinds without opening another schema, and it explicitly contrasts itself with pr_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?

Routes the agent clearly: full-text applies to the two LPRA-mapped codes, title/catchline applies to topics outside them, and for an 'act' hit it says to call pr_statute with the act number for the text. Gives example query terms. No explicit 'when not to use this' or mention of other sibling search tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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