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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses what the tool returns: catchline, body, history note, and first-enacted/last-amended dates. It also explains the non-obvious behavior of `as_of` (past text) and `pending` (variants enacted but not yet effective), which is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent use the tool correctly.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: definition, usage pattern, accepted inputs, return contents, temporal options, section-level constraint, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded and well organized, with no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 read-only statute lookup tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it covers the exact use case, citation formats, temporal modes, return components, and when to choose sibling tools. The only minor gap, `max_chars` semantics, is mitigated by the schema's default value and does not prevent an agent from calling the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `citation` with accepted spelling examples, `as_of` as past-date text, and `pending` as not-yet-effective variants. However, `max_chars` is not explained at all, even though its default of 12000 could affect the returned text and its interaction with the promised 'full text' is unclear.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Full text of one North Carolina (NC) General Statutes section, by citation.' It also differentiates itself from siblings such as amendment_history and diff_statute by explicitly saying when to use those instead, so an agent can distinguish the tool without opening schemas.

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?

The description gives an explicit query pattern ('what does G.S. 14-72.1 say'), states the section-level limitation ('ask for "20-141", not "20-141(j1)"'), and names precise alternatives for related needs: amendment_history for WHEN it changed and diff_statute for WHAT changed.

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