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

With readOnlyHint=true, the annotation already covers safety. The description adds meaningful behavior: only future-dated variants are counted, a diff is returned by default, and AMENDMENT is distinguished from NEW SECTION with no diff. This goes beyond the annotations and reveals important non-obvious 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, return contents, amendment vs new section behavior, and alternative tools. No redundant or filler language.

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 output schema exists and readOnlyHint covers safety, the description is strong on scope, behavior, and alternatives. The only significant gap is the lack of explicit parameter descriptions, which is especially relevant because the input schema provides none.

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?

Input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only tangentially mentions include_diff by saying 'by default a diff' and references Chapter 14, but it never explains limit, chapter, citation, or include_diff parameter intent. The 4 parameters are left essentially undocumented.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as handling NC statute text already enacted but not yet effective. It specifies the verb/resource relationship by explaining that it returns current and future variants with effective dates and diffs, and it differentiates the purpose from related tools like get_statute and amendment_history.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use for what changes to Chapter 14 are coming.' It also provides clear exclusions and alternatives: 'For text in force now use get_statute; for already-enacted history use amendment_history or recent_law_changes.' This gives an agent unambiguous routing guidance.

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