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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds real value beyond them: 'Keyless' discloses no authentication is needed, and it states the return shape ('statutory text with a data_as_of timestamp') and the freshness/currency implication.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and scope, and every sentence carries information. There is mild redundancy in glossing 'North Carolina General Statutes' as 'North Carolina state law', which costs it the top mark.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned (full statutory text with a data_as_of timestamp), how to invoke it (by citation), and that it requires no key. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents the '14-17' and '20-138.1' forms plus the chapter-before-dash rule. The description adds the accepted citation prefix convention ('N.C.G.S. 14-17'), a small but genuine increment over the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the North Carolina General Statutes') and constrains it to lookup by citation, which cleanly separates it from the sibling nc_statute_search. The worked example ('N.C.G.S. 14-17' is first degree murder) makes the resource concrete.

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?

It gives explicit usage contexts: 'what does North Carolina General Statute 14-17 say' or checking an NC statute a case relies on. It does not, however, explicitly point to nc_statute_search as the alternative when the user lacks a citation, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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