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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds crucial behavioral traits: partial capability, authentication limitation, live vs fallback indexes, and the presence of a coverage_note. This goes well beyond 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?

Front-loads purpose and packs necessary detail into a tight, information-dense paragraph. Each sentence adds unique information about scope, return format, limitations, and the alternative tool; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains return format for 552/551 (number, date, one-line summary), fallback behavior for other chapters, and points to the response's coverage_note. Complete enough for an agent to call 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 100%, so baseline 3; however, the description enriches the citation parameter by explaining it can be a statute interpretation or keyword and gives real-world examples with act names (Public Information Act, Open Meetings Act). Adds useful context beyond schema's generic examples.

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 ('Find') and resource ('Texas AG opinions interpreting a given statute or citing it as a keyword'), and distinguishes itself from tx_ag_opinion_lookup by routing there for full text. The examples clarify covered statutes.

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 states when to use this tool (statute/keyword search) and when not (not a full-text search; archive needs authentication this pack lacks), and names tx_ag_opinion_lookup as the alternative for full text. Strong routing guidance.

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