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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits: keyless access, no per-year historical archive or "view as of" picker, and that the amendment history is taken verbatim from the section's own Source line. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior for invalid citations.

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 core action and a concrete example; every clause carries information (citation formats, return contents, historical limitation). It is dense and slightly long, with the source-line quotation verging on over-detail, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: statutory text, catchline, chapter/title context, and amendment history. The one gap is what happens on an unrecognized citation (error vs. empty), which an agent would want to know.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds accepted citation forms ("RSA 630:1", "§ 630:1") that the schema does not enumerate, which genuinely helps an agent normalize input.

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: retrieves the FULL TEXT of a New Hampshire RSA section by citation, with concrete examples ("630:1" = capital murder). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling nh_search, which is a search rather than a citation lookup.

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 clear trigger scenarios ("what does RSA 630:1 say", checking a statute a case or lease relies on) and states the current-text-only limitation up front. It does not explicitly name nh_search as the alternative for keyword discovery, which keeps it short of a 5.

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