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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: matching is against official section/chapter catchlines rather than full statutory prose, full-text search is unavailable (verified live), the result shape is citations plus catchlines, and the API is keyless. This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure the dimension rewards.

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 behavior and the nd_statute routing in the first two sentences. It is on the long side and the "verified live" aside is slightly chatty, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs (matching scope, result shape, auth model).

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 still describes what comes back (matching citations and catchlines) and what to do next (call nd_statute for full text). Combined with the explicit limitations on what is matched, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 description lifts it by clarifying that the query is a topic phrase rather than a citation and by showing multiple example phrasings that map to the matching semantics. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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), resource (North Dakota Century Code) and mode (BY TOPIC or keyword rather than citation). It explicitly distinguishes itself from nd_statute, the citation-lookup sibling, so an agent can route 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 the when (topic/keyword queries, with concrete examples like "concealed weapon permit"), the when-not (citation lookup, pointing to nd_statute with a citation), and the follow-up step for full text. The choice between nd_search and nd_statute is fully resolved in the description.

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