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

Annotations already mark it read-only; the description adds behavior: returns ranked snippets rather than full text, expands court abbreviations case-insensitively and reports it in expanded_query, searches current law at section level, and treats low top rank as evidence the subject may not be statutorily covered. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.

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 longer than average but front-loads the core search-and-get_statute workflow first, then syntax, then interpretation. Every paragraph earns its place with examples and operational guidance; no filler.

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 and annotations, the description gives an agent enough to select the tool, form a correct query, understand abbreviated input handling, and know what the result means. It lacks only a bit of detail on chapter/include_repealed filtering, which is unlikely to mislead.

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 contains no property descriptions, so the description must carry the burden. It thoroughly explains query syntax (exact phrases, -excluded terms, or) and shorthand expansion, which is the highest-value parameter. It does not explicitly walk through limit, chapter, or include_repealed, though their names/defaults make them fairly discoverable; this is a small but real 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?

The description names a specific verb, resource, and mode: search NC statutes by topic, keyword, or phrase. It gives concrete examples and immediately contrasts with get_statute, so an agent can distinguish search tools 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?

Explicitly states when to use: when you know the subject but not the citation. It names the alternative (get_statute) for citation lookups and even tells the agent to follow up with get_statute after selecting a section. It also explains how to interpret low relevance rather than forcing a match.

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