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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by clarifying that the output includes conditions and death limits and that selecting a situation 'never grants authority,' which prevents misuse.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or wasted wording.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter enum-based tool with full schema descriptions and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what is returned and clarifies the authority limitation, though it does not describe output structure, which is less critical absent an output schema but still a minor gap.

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%, and both parameters have clear enum descriptions, so the schema already carries the main parameter burden. The description adds only a modest clarification that situation selects a reading focus and does not confer authority, which is useful but does not go beyond the schema substantially.

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: returning published agency routes with forms, conditions, incapacity, and death limits. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as state_rules or after_death_deadlines.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'the situation selects a reading focus,' but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools. It also adds the useful caveat that the tool 'never grants authority,' but that is a behavioral clarification rather than routing guidance.

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