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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety, but the description adds a genuinely important interpretation caveat (a 'not_listed' result is not proof of good law because the AG's own index is incomplete) plus the authoritative source. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, each front-loaded and earning its place: the action, the critical caveat, then the source. Tight and readable, with only mild redundancy in the sourcing URL.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the interpretation caveat, and even hints at a return value ('not_listed'). Safety is covered by annotations, so little an agent needs to call 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% and the schema already carries the opinion_number example ('KP-0326'). The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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verb (check) and resource (Texas AG opinion status) with the exact enumerated statuses (overruled, modified, affirmed, superseded, withdrawn) and the data source. It clearly differs in scope from tx_ag_opinion_lookup, but never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Usage is implied by the caveat that 'not_listed' does not mean the opinion is still good law, hinting this is a validity-check tool. However, it never states when to reach for this versus tx_ag_opinion_lookup or tx_ag_statute_search, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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