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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds real value by disclosing the data's provenance (statutory dates from the legislature's record, not database observation timestamps) and the shape of the result (one entry per session law, grouped by year, plus first-enacted year and total count). This is exactly the kind of caveat that prevents misreading the output; only the fact that the output schema already covers result structure keeps it from a 5.

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-loads the core answer, then usage examples, then the result shape, then the disambiguation clause. Every sentence carries information; 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still characterizes them usefully. With a single fully documented parameter and explicit sibling routing, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, including examples ("14-33", "G.S. 20-141") and a description. The prose adds no format or syntax guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: statutory enactment and every amendment date for an NC statute section. The title/description pair makes clear this is the legislative history timeline, not the text itself, so it is distinguishable from siblings at a glance.

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?

Gives concrete user-intent triggers ("how often has G.S. 14-33 changed", "when was this last amended") and explicitly routes away: recent_law_changes for database-observed text changes, get_statute or diff_statute for the wording itself. When-to-use and alternatives are both stated.

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