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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it discloses the live cnmilaw.org attempt, the current outage, the Wayback Machine fallback, and that responses report the route, data_as_of, and staleness warnings. This gives the agent a realistic picture of reliability and provenance.

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 core purpose and then supplies citation examples, return behavior, and fallback context without wasting space. The length is justified by the operational fallback details the agent needs.

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 is present, so the description usefully explains that it returns the catchline and statutory text plus route metadata. With annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior and the single parameter fully documented, the definition is complete enough 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 already 100%, so the schema carries the main parameter definition. The description still adds accepted natural citation forms beyond the schema examples, including "Title 6 Section 1101".

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: retrieves the TEXT of a cited CNMI statutory section. It is clearly distinguishable from a generic search tool by being citation-based, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling nmi_search.

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 clear usage examples such as asking what "6 CMC 1101" says or checking a Northern Mariana Islands statute. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name nmi_search as the alternative for broader research.

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