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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds critical interpretive constraints: zero versus null, “no transfers reported” versus “did not file,” and the warning not to infer cooperation or legal violation from the records. These are exactly the behavioral and semantic caveats an agent needs to avoid misusing the data.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded and every sentence carries substantive information: scope, required parameters, state-specific year semantics, Illinois row availability, zero/null interpretation, and legal-language warnings. There is 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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the complexity of comparing non-comparable state self-reports, the description supplies enough scope, parameter meaning, data availability caveats, and interpretive warnings for an agent to use the tool responsibly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds useful parameter context: state is mandatory, the other fields are optional, Oregon year refers to the end of a June–May period, and Illinois agency rows are only available for 2024. That goes beyond merely restating the schema.

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 uses a specific verb, “Search,” and names exactly what is searched: California Values Act transfer counts, Illinois Way Forward Act reports, and Oregon Sanctuary Promise Act requests/communications. It also clarifies that these are state agency self-reports with non-comparable measures, which meaningfully distinguishes this tool from broader immigration or DOJ-list tools.

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 clearly states that state is required and that agency, year, and limit are optional, giving the agent enough guidance to invoke the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, such as how this differs from sanctuary_doj_list or other immigration-related sibling tools.

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