laws

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the source (legislature sites), the max-50 limit, the scale warning for whole codes, and the returned fields (citation, heading, text, url). It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then walks through no-state, state, and whole-code behavior efficiently. It is dense but appropriately sized. Bullet formatting would improve scanability, but no sentence is wasted.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both modes, return fields, and the scale limitation plus an alternative for full codes. It omits auth/permissions and pagination beyond limit, but is otherwise adequate.

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 must compensate. It explains the state format (e.g. 'us-tx'), the no-state mode, and the limit cap (max 50). The default limit of 10 is not restated, though the schema supplies it.

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: reading US state codes from each legislature's own site. It also distinguishes two modes based on whether the state parameter is provided. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the scope is clear.

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?

Explains when to omit state (list of states with citation form/source) versus when to provide state (first limit sections of that state's code). It also gives an alternative CLI path for reading a whole code. No sibling-tool alternatives or exclusions are given.

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