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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ('Free'), the provenance of results ('every result carries its government source link and quoted text'), and the geographic boundary of the corpus. It does not mention rate limits, result counts, result ordering, or authentication requirements, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Four sentences, each adding information: capability, source and scale, cost plus result shape, coverage boundary. Slightly dense at the opening with the dash-separated list of resource types, but nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description supplies corpus scale (30M+), provenance guarantees, cost, and jurisdictional scope — enough to decide and call it. The only material omission is guidance on how to construct the query string.

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% for the single required 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never says whether the query should be natural language, keyword syntax, a citation, or a jurisdiction-filtered phrase — an agent could easily call this with an unsupported format.

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) plus the exact resource set — statutes, regulations, court opinions, bills, county and city ordinances — and names the underlying index (Firecrawl's Government & Legal Index). An agent immediately knows this is US legal-source retrieval, and no sibling tool competes for that space.

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 a clear context for use (US federal, state and local law for AI agents) and an explicit exclusion: 'other countries are not in this index.' It stops short of naming alternative tools or describing query strategies, but the exclusion covers the main misuse risk.

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