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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the boundary condition that only future-dated variants count and that a diff is returned by default, which is genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations. It does not, however, discuss result volume or how the limit/pagination interacts with the diff payload.

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 scoping sentence is front-loaded, followed by a use-case, then return behavior, then the disambiguation block. Every sentence carries distinct information and the alternatives are last, which is the right ordering.

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-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description helpfully summarizes what comes back. For a read-only, filtered-list tool the coverage is nearly complete; only the unexplained limit/citation parameters leave a gap, and that is scored separately.

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 0% for all four parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains the default diff behavior (include_diff) and implies chapter filtering via the Chapter 14 example, but says nothing about limit, citation, or the string-vs-integer form of chapter. Two of four parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource (NC statute text enacted but not yet effective) and distinguishes three sibling tools by name (get_statute, amendment_history, recent_law_changes). It even clarifies a subtle semantic: AMENDMENT (current text exists) vs NEW SECTION (no diff possible). An agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('what changes to Chapter 14 are coming') plus explicit when-not-to-use with the correct alternatives for each case ('text in force now use get_statute', 'already-enacted history use amendment_history or recent_law_changes'). Nothing is left to inference.

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