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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essential search-scope transparency beyond annotations: it searches catchlines only, not full statutory text, and it describes the return shape as matching citations and catchlines. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to interpret empty results correctly.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by return behavior and the catchline-only limitation. Every sentence earns its place, and the caveat is placed where it prevents misuse.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what comes back (matching citations and catchlines) and how to get full text via nmi_statute. It also covers the main failure mode, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by clarifying that the query is a topic/keyword matched against section catchlines, explicitly not a citation, and provides examples. It says nothing extra about the limit parameter, but the schema already documents that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search the Commonwealth Code of the Northern Mariana Islands by topic or keyword over official section catchlines. It explicitly distinguishes this catchline search from citation-based retrieval and names nmi_statute as the sibling for full text, so an agent can route correctly 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?

It says exactly when to use this tool (topic/keyword queries against catchlines) and when not to (citation lookup, which belongs to nmi_statute). It also warns that a query absent from all catchlines returns no matches even if the topic appears in a section body, which is a critical usage caveat.

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