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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: it discloses what is returned (statutory text, catchline, chapter name, History line), that it is keyless, and a specific failure mode (chapter_not_baked instead of a false no-match). This is exactly the error-behavior context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose, then examples, then return shape, then the chapter-PDF caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the paragraph is dense and could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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 burden of describing return values and does so (full text, catchline, chapter name, History line). Combined with the citation-format and failure-mode notes, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already 100% (citation, with lettered-chapter examples), and the description adds meaning beyond it by enumerating accepted citation formats — bare '30-2-1', 'NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1', and '§ 30-2-1' — which reduces input-format risk.

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: retrieve the full text of an NMSA 1978 section by citation. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling nm_search (search) and nm_chapters (chapter listing), and even defines the unit of retrieval (per-section text from chapter PDFs).

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 triggers — 'what does NMSA 30-2-1 say' and 'check a statute a case or contract relies on' — and explains the uncovered-chapter case returns chapter_not_baked rather than a false no-match. It does not explicitly name nm_search/nm_chapters as the alternative when the citation is unknown, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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