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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by noting the tool is 'Keyless,' which clarifies authentication expectations, and by previewing the subject-to-code mapping behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, examples are compact, and the usage direction is delivered efficiently in the second sentence.

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 simple keyless listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to tx_statute. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description reinforces this with the phrase 'Keyless' and by specifying that the tool takes no distinguishing input, which aligns with the empty properties object.

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?

The description states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('the Texas codes'), and gives concrete examples that make the output format understandable. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool tx_statute by clarifying that this tool resolves subjects to abbreviations, not statute text.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when you know the subject but not the code abbreviation.' It also positions it in the workflow with 'before calling tx_statute,' providing clear guidance relative to the most relevant sibling tool.

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