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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a five-year feed window, returned dated coverage, and live/snapshot status, which materially informs how the agent should interpret results. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the coverage caveat is placed after the core action so the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description does well on coverage and status but leaves the mechanics of the call undocumented. With 0% parameter documentation and no return-value description, an agent knows why to use the tool but not how to tune limit/offset or what fields come back.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the three parameters (limit, query, offset). It says nothing about any of them: no query syntax, no default or max limit, no pagination semantics for offset. The agent must infer everything from bare type constraints.

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 verb and resource ('Search enacted public laws') and adds a scope qualifier ('in the existing five-year feed'), so an agent immediately knows what is being searched. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read_* tools, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

The clause 'newer or unresolved laws may be missing' implicitly tells the agent when results will be incomplete, which is useful guidance. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing against read_public_implementation or read_research_scope, leaving usage to inference.

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