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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavioral context: resolution walks up to the nearest jurisdiction with data, jurisdiction names the parent actually read while resolved_from names the requested slug, and it discloses rate limits (25 lookups/day anonymous, metered with key, trial key capped at 10 distinct jurisdictions shared with run_lint). It also flags the payload as data-not-instructions, which is meaningful safety context beyond the annotations.

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 core facts (single payload, nine topics, resolution fallback, quota) are front-loaded, but the nine-topic enumeration and the embedded disclaimer/prompt-injection note make this a single dense paragraph that is hard to scan. The topic list arguably earns its place to justify the 'one call' claim, but the passage could be tightened considerably.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: instruments with citations, status, behavior categories and as_of_date, plus verdict-level crawl policy, per-scenario access matrix, robots.txt legal weight and TDM opt-out status. An agent needs nothing further to decide whether to call it or how to read the result.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the jurisdiction slug is resolved by walking up the hierarchy, and the response distinguishes the parent that answered from the slug that was asked for. That resolution behavior is not expressible in the schema and directly shapes how an agent interprets the call.

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 ('One jurisdiction's law from the LexLint law library') and enumerates the nine topics the single payload covers, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also distinguishes itself from the natural misuse pattern ('do not call this nine times for one jurisdiction'), which separates it from run_lint and check_access in practice.

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?

Gives explicit use context ('ONE call answers an AI question, a scraping question...') and an exclusion ('do not call this nine times'), plus quota behavior shared with run_lint. It does not explicitly route between resolve_domain_jurisdiction, check_access and this tool, so the when-not guidance is not fully complete.

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