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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: 'Keyless' (no auth required), full-text search semantics, and the return shape ('ranked sections with their citations'). It stops short of discussing the 10-result hard cap, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Leads with the search mode, which is the decisive information, then examples, routing, and the keyless note. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information, 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, and the description compensates by stating that results are ranked sections with citations, plus the follow-up path to full text. The only shortfall is the result-count ceiling, which an agent would have to discover from the parameter schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the Solr proxy cap on limit. The description's query examples duplicate rather than extend the schema's own example, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond structured fields.

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 (Utah Code), plus the exact input mode: by topic or keyword rather than citation, with three concrete query examples. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ut_code_section by scope, so an agent can choose without opening schemas.

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?

Names when to use it (topic/keyword questions, questions 'no citation lookup can' answer) and when not to (citation lookups), and routes the agent to ut_code_section for full text afterward. Both the condition and the alternative are explicit.

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