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

Adds real context beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld): the search matches the Legislature's official catchlines rather than full statutory prose, that no full-text search exists ('verified live'), that it is keyless, and that results are citations plus catchlines. Missing only minor operational detail like pagination behavior, which the schema's limit param partly covers.

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-loads the key topic-vs-citation distinction and keeps the routing advice early. Dense but every clause informs behavior; the parenthetical 'verified live' and repeated examples are slightly verbose but not padding.

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 still states what comes back (matching citations and catchlines), what does not (full text, retrieved via sd_statute), and that no key is needed. An agent has everything required to call it 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what the query actually matches against (section and chapter catchlines) and giving worked examples of topic-style queries, which meaningfully shapes how an agent formulates input.

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 (Search) and resource (South Dakota Codified Laws) plus the crucial scope qualifier 'BY TOPIC or keyword rather than citation'. This immediately separates it from the sibling sd_statute, which retrieves full text by citation.

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 the when-to-use ('by topic ... rather than citation') and names the alternative with its condition: 'call sd_statute with a citation for the full text.' No inference required to route between the two tools.

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