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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, but the description adds non-obvious context: 'Keyless' (no auth), full-text coverage across all titles except Title 97, and what a result contains (citations and headings, not full text). It stops short of noting result ranking or behavior on zero hits.

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?

One tight paragraph with the primary scope claim first, examples second, coverage caveat third, and the follow-up call last. No filler, and every clause carries actionable information.

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, yet the description still tells the agent what comes back (matching citations and headings) and how to continue to full text. Combined with the two documented parameters and coverage caveat, an agent has everything needed to call 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 real semantic guidance beyond the schema by clarifying that 'query' means topic/keywords, not a citation, and by giving three illustrative phrasings. The 'limit' parameter is left to the schema, which documents it fully.

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 and resource ('Search the Wyoming Statutes') plus the crucial scope distinction: BY TOPIC/keyword rather than by citation. Concrete example queries make the intended input shape unambiguous, and the exclusion of Title 97 is spelled out.

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 between the two modes: use this for topical/keyword lookup, then 'call wy_statute with a citation for the full text'. That names the sibling alternative and the condition that selects each, so the agent never has to guess.

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