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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: keyless access, returns only the CURRENT text, no per-year historical archive, no amendment-history field, and how repealed/redesignated sections surface. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot supply.

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 purpose, then examples, accepted formats, return shape, caveats, and usage. Dense but every sentence is functional; the only mild redundancy is repeating citation-to-subject examples already present in the schema.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so ('the current statutory text, the official catchline, and chapter/title context'). Combined with the coverage limitations and keyless note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it lists accepted natural citation forms ('12.1-16-01', 'NDCC 12.1-16-01', '§ 12.1-16-01') that the schema does not, extending beyond the schema's title-chapter-section framing.

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 — 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the North Dakota Century Code' — with concrete citation examples ('12.1-16-01' is murder). It clearly distinguishes itself from the retrieval siblings (nd_search) by being citation-based full-text retrieval.

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 triggering phrases ('what does NDCC 12.1-16-01 say', checking a statute a case or lease relies on). Clear context, but it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it (e.g., versus nd_search), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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