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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it explains the OUTBOUND vs INBOUND distinction, the section-level granularity rule (20-141(j1) → edge to 20-141), and that chapter-wide references are excluded. This helps the agent understand what results to expect and what to avoid.

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 tightly written, front-loads the core purpose, and uses clear examples. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage, direction semantics, granularity rule, and pointer to the sibling tool. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics well. It explains the direction model, the granularity rule, and when to use the sibling get_statute. However, it omits documentation for the 'limit' parameter and does not spell out direction value options, which are minor gaps given the clarity of the core function.

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 of documenting parameters. It conceptually explains direction (INBOUND/OUTBOUND) but does not enumerate the possible values for the 'direction' parameter or explain the 'limit' parameter. It also doesn't specify the citation format. Partial compensation, but gaps remain.

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 states exactly what the tool does: lists statutes that a given NC statute cites (OUTBOUND) and those that cite it (INBOUND). It distinguishes itself from get_statute by explicitly directing text retrieval there, and the sibling list confirms this differentiation.

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?

Provides concrete example queries ('what does G.S. 14-72.1 depend on' or 'what else references it') and clarifies the two direction semantics. It also explicitly says 'For the text itself use get_statute', naming the alternative and the condition for choosing it.

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