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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: observed history begins at first ingest, most sections have only one version, and diff can be null. It also explains what mode='pending' actually compares. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 information-dense but well-organized: main purpose, mode explanations, then a clear limitation and alternatives. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the most important discriminator (mode behavior) 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?

The description covers the key behavioral modes, limitations, and sibling routing, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it omits practical invocation details such as how to write the citation and date parameters, which are not covered by the schema descriptions. Minor but real gap.

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 mode semantics well and implies from_date/to_date with 'optionally between two dates', but it does not describe citation format, date format, or the format parameter. With five parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a meaningful gap.

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 ('diff') and resource ('North Carolina statute section between two versions'), and immediately distinguishes the two modes. It also names sibling tools at the end, making the tool's role clear relative to amendment_history and pending_changes.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: mode='pending' for enacted-but-not-yet-effective changes, mode='observed' for recorded versions. It also explicitly routes users to amendment_history for earlier dates and pending_changes for pending text, leaving no ambiguity about alternatives.

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