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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: keyless access, AND-semantics for multi-word queries, and result ordering (heading matches listed first) plus the returned fields (citation, heading, snippet). It does not state pagination or truncation behavior, which keeps it at 4.

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 tight sentences: what it searches, examples, then return shape. The scoping constraint is front-loaded and every clause carries information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 naming the returned fields and their ordering. With keyless access, title selection guidance, and match semantics all present, an agent has everything needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious meaning the schema does not: all words must appear, and matching is against heading or text. Concrete example pairings (title 14 + murder, title 28 + landlord) reinforce the relationship between the two required params.

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?

Specific verb (search) + resource (one title of the Virgin Islands Code) + scope constraint (ONE title, keywords match headings or text). It is clearly distinguishable from vi_titles (browsing titles) and vi_statute (presumably cross-title lookup) without opening any 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 routes the agent to vi_titles to pick the title, and the 'ONE title' constraint tells the agent this is not a whole-code search. There is no explicit when-not or direct naming of vi_statute as the alternative for cross-title queries, so it stops just short of a 5.

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