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

Annotations already carry read-only/idempotent/non-destructive semantics, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'effective' looks forward into future effective dates, and 'observed' reflects ncleg's publishing schedule rather than the law's own timeline. That distinction is exactly the kind of caveat an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 resource and its date axes, then groups guidance by source value in short, skimmable clauses with no padding. The dense quoting style is slightly awkward but every sentence carries a distinct instruction.

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 shape is covered, and the description fully handles the semantic minefield of source selection and date pairing. It is still thin on three optional parameters (limit, chapter, include_baseline), which leaves an agent guessing when those filters are useful.

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 coverage is only 17%, so the description carries real weight here, and it does explain source semantics and the since/until pairing for a single-day query. However, limit, chapter, and include_baseline are never mentioned in either the schema or the description, so the compensation is partial.

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 resource (changed NC statutes) and the axes along which they are organized (effective date, observation, session year), which is well beyond restating the name. It also names the sibling to use for a different granularity (amendment_history), letting an agent disambiguate 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 maps each source value to a question it answers ('effective' for what took effect on a day or a future quarter, 'statutory' for the legislature's history-note record, 'observed' for database-side text changes), and states 'both' returns statutory + observed. It also routes single-section lookups to amendment_history with an explicit condition.

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