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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that results are mined from the section's own history note, grouped by year, and include first-enacted year and total amendment count. It also clarifies that these are statutory dates from the legislature's record, not database update dates, which is important behavioral context.

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 well-organized: purpose, usage examples, return summary, and sibling differentiation. The first sentence largely repeats the title, which is slightly redundant, but overall every paragraph earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers why to use it, what it returns, how results are derived, and which alternatives to use in related scenarios. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The schema only has a 'citation' string with no description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives an explicit example format, 'G.S. 14-33', and explains the resource is an NC statute section, which is helpful. It could be more explicit about accepted citation variants, but the example supplies enough guidance for a single-parameter tool.

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 reports when an NC statute section was enacted and every time it was amended, with concrete example questions. It also differentiates itself from related tools such as recent_law_changes, get_statute, and diff_statute.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for questions like 'how often has G.S. 14-33 changed' or 'when was this last amended', and tells the agent to use recent_law_changes for database-observed changes and get_statute/diff_statute for wording. This is clear routing guidance.

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