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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: it returns ranked sections with citations, and it is keyless (no auth required). It doesn't describe pagination or ranking mechanics, so it's not exhaustive.

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 key differentiator (topic/keyword vs citation), supplies three concrete query examples, then routes to the follow-up tool. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must and does explain the return shape (ranked sections with citations). Combined with full annotation coverage and keyless disclosure, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented (query, limit with default/max). The description's topic examples reinforce the query intent but add no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search North Carolina General Statutes') and scopes it to topic/keyword search as opposed to citation lookup. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling nc_general_statute, so an agent can route between them without opening a 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 explicit when-to-use ('BY TOPIC or keyword rather than citation'), a when-to-use-the-alternative rule ('use nc_general_statute afterward for the full text of one'), and a capability note ('answers questions no citation lookup can'). Nothing is left to inference.

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