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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: results are derived from the section's own history note, grouped by year, deduplicated across multiple text versions, plus a first-enacted year and total amendment count. The `not_yet_in_force` entry semantics and the distinction between statutory dates and database-observed changes are exactly the kind of behavioral nuance annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition, then use cases, then return shape, then disambiguation against siblings. Each sentence carries distinct information — no restatement of the title or name.

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 one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing. The description even adds value the output schema cannot, such as the grouping, deduplication, and not_yet_in_force semantics.

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 100% and the single `citation` parameter already carries examples and a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description implies the citation form through its G.S. 14-33 example but adds no format or normalization guidance beyond the schema.

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 and resource — when an NC statute section was enacted and each amendment date — and explicitly frames the tool around citation-level history. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings that return text (get_statute, diff_statute) rather than temporal enactment records.

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?

It gives literal trigger queries ('how often has G.S. 14-33 changed', 'when was this last amended') and then names the alternatives with the condition that selects each: recent_law_changes for database-observed changes, get_statute or diff_statute for wording. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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