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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the exact scope of the corpus searched and the shape of the results (ranked, each with verbatim snippet, citation and link). It omits anything about defaults or ranking behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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: the trigger condition comes first, the scope and return shape second, and the exclusions last. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant filler.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to state purpose, scope, and boundaries — and it does all three. An agent has everything required to select and invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including the kind enum and topic slug) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description echoes the statute-versus-case split that maps to the kind enum and mentions citation-style queries, but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that.

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 (Searches), a precise resource (the Davis-Stirling Act, Civil Code §§4000–6150, and interpreting court decisions), and the exact corpus boundary. An agent can distinguish this from get_statute_section, find_interpreting_cases, and get_court_case without inspecting 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 gives the when ('user asks about California HOA, condominium or common-interest-development law') and the when-not, enumerating specific exclusions: other states, commercial/industrial CIDs (§§6500–6876), Corporations Code, local ordinances, and a single association's governing documents. This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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