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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious context: the breadth of jurisdictions covered, the stage taxonomy attached to each item, and the heavy skew toward state bills that drives result volume. It doesn't state freshness/update cadence, which matters for a tool named 'updates'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and coverage, followed by the single most useful operational tip. Every clause earns its place; nothing repeats the annotations or schema.

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 need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains — coverage scope, stage values, filter strategy, volume skew — is all present, leaving an agent able to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value for jurisdiction by explaining that us_state dominates results and filtering narrows them. The limit parameter (default 50, cap 100) is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Current AI legislation headlines') with explicit coverage scope (US Congress/federal agencies, US state legislatures, UK Parliament, EU) and the data shape (legislative stage values). This is enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like search_news or get_topic_signal without opening the 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?

Gives actionable usage context: 'State bills are the largest share by far; filter with jurisdiction to narrow' tells the agent why and when to pass the jurisdiction param. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use this tool versus search_news or get_region_signal.

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