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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that results are ranked sections with highlighted fragments rather than full text, that the tool searches law currently in force at section level, that court shorthand is case-insensitively expanded and reported back as `expanded_query`, and how to interpret a weak top rank. This is behaviorally rich context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 purpose, then usage, return shape, and query syntax in that order; each paragraph carries a distinct piece of information. It is somewhat long and the shorthand-expansion behavior is stated twice (once here, once in the schema), which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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, yet the description still usefully characterizes the return shape for chaining into `get_statute`, and it covers the query syntax and empty-result interpretation an agent needs. The only real gap is the undocumented `chapter` and `include_repealed` filters, which limit the agent's ability to narrow or widen scope.

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 25%, but the description thoroughly compensates for the required `query` parameter with phrase/-exclusion/`or` syntax and shorthand expansion. However, `chapter`, `limit` and `include_repealed` are documented nowhere; the text's "law in force today" hints at the default scope but never explains how to search repealed law or restrict to a chapter.

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 (Search) and resource (North Carolina statutes) with the scope of the search (topic, keyword or phrase). It explicitly names the sibling `get_statute` as the alternative when a citation is already known, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ("you know the SUBJECT but not the citation") with three concrete example queries, and an explicit when-not-to-use rule pointing to `get_statute`. It even pre-empts the empty-result case by telling the agent that a low top rank means no statute is on point.

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