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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the two data sources, their distinct meanings, and the fact that the initial corpus load is excluded unless include_baseline=true. This is valuable behavioral detail that an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations alone.

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 concise and well-structured: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential source semantics, a baseline caveat, and a pointer to an alternative tool. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with five parameters and multiple behavioral subtleties, the description covers the most important aspects: source kinds, baseline behavior, and sibling routing. However, it leaves the required 'since' format and 'chapter' semantics underspecified, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent preparing a valid call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It explains include_baseline and partially explains source and since, but it does not clarify the expected format for the required 'since' parameter or the meaning of 'chapter' and 'limit'. This is a noticeable gap in parameter guidance.

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 that this tool returns recently changed North Carolina statutes filtered by date or year. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool amendment_history by directing single-section queries there, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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 explicit usage context: STATUTORY is for legislative history such as 'what passed in 2025', while OBSERVED covers database-detected changes. It also explicitly says to use amendment_history for a single section, providing a clear alternative and when-not-to-use guidance.

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