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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: matching is against catchlines/headings not full body text, it returns citations/catchlines/chapter context, it uses the same 2021-05-21 snapshot, and it is keyless. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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 core action and scope, then layers matching semantics, return values, and snapshot metadata. Every sentence earns its place despite the length.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what is returned (citations, catchlines, chapter context) and the snapshot version. 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% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaningful semantics: example queries and the crucial note that matching targets headings/catchlines, not section text. The limit parameter is only covered by the schema, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 (Tennessee Code Annotated) with explicit scope: by topic/keyword rather than citation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tn_statute by naming the citation-based alternative, so an agent can select between them without opening either 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 says to use this for topic/keyword lookups and to call tn_statute with a citation for full text. The when-not is also stated (words appearing only in body text won't be found), which routes the agent correctly.

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