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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that results are deduplicated to one hit per section and are snippets rather than full text, which shapes how an agent plans retrieval.

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 dense sentences: purpose and return shape first, next-step routing second, then parameter semantics. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still frames them usefully. The only real gap for a search tool is the behavior of `limit` (cap, pagination) and what happens when no snapshot year is given by default.

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 burden — and it does for three of four params: `query` is implied by full-text search, `as_of` is given a format (YYYY-MM-DD) plus semantics (year's snapshot), and `title` is given example values ('31', '7.1'). Only `limit` (default 10, no stated maximum) goes undocumented.

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 ('Full-text search of Indiana Code sections') and implicitly distinguishes itself from case_search and ic_browse by naming the code and the full-text mode. It also declares the return shape (section ids, headings, snippets) so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 routes the follow-up step explicitly ('fetch the text with ic_get_section') and explains the two narrowing dimensions (title number, snapshot year). It stops short of saying when to prefer this over ic_browse or ic_search_companion, which are plausible alternatives an agent must still infer.

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