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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot: every item carries an official source link and a checked date, the corpus is 355 cited items, and the 'not legal advice' disclaimer. It doesn't say anything about result size or pagination, keeping it at 4.

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 tightly packed sentences: what it returns, what unlocks extra checks, and provenance plus a disclaimer. The scope statement is front-loaded and no sentence is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what each returned item includes (source link and checked date) and by flagging the answer is not legal advice. For a five-parameter, one-required read tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it 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, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the causal relationship — that providing gvwr_lbs, axles and interstate is what activates the threshold checks. It omits the category enum, which is the one parameter an agent might overlook, so it does not quite reach 5.

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 ('Lists') plus an enumerated set of resource types (registration, IFTA, IRP, DOT inspection, emissions, permits, highway-use tax) scoped to a US state/DC plus federal items. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inspection_checklist or recall_lookup, which cover narrower single-purpose lookups.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to supply GVWR, axles and interstate status in order to unlock the CDL/USDOT/IFTA/IRP/Form 2290 threshold checks, which is real conditional guidance. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or a competing tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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