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

The description discloses what the tool returns (citing section and unit) and the readOnlyHint annotation indicates no side effects. However, it does not mention potential errors, limits, or the exact format of the output, so it is not fully transparent.

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 description is concise but awkwardly phrased as a run-on sentence: 'Laws by the short title the statute states (...): the citing section and the unit the name covers.' It could be structured more clearly while staying brief.

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 simple read-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it states the purpose, the input (short title), and the output (citing section and unit). It lacks explicit details on output format or error handling, but these are not critical for a basic lookup.

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?

The only parameter 'name' has no description in the schema, and the schema coverage is 0%. The tool description implies that 'name' is the short title, but this is not explicitly stated, so the parameter meaning is not fully compensated for by the description.

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 clearly states the tool finds laws by short title, providing concrete examples ('Joshua's Law', 'Georgia Lemonade Stand Act') and mentions the output (citing section and unit). This differentiates it from sibling tools like code_search or code_lookup_section.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the specific purpose (searching by short title) is clear enough that an agent can infer when it is appropriate. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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