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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: elective_ptet_2026 counts only 2026 files with an elective PTET, and no_elective_ptet_2026 / not_effective_2026 are explicitly not PTET states, preventing a likely misinterpretation of returned categories.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool lists, then the field semantics that require clarification. Every sentence conveys information; nothing is padding.

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 and no params, yet the description names the key coverage categories and disambiguates the easily-confused ones, which is the essential context for interpreting the result. Minor gap: the full shape of the returned list isn't described, but for a simple enumeration tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

Zero parameters, so a baseline of 4 applies per the rubric. There is nothing to document and the description does not waste space on parameter explanation.

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 ('List jurisdictions and tax years in this dataset') plus explicit field-level semantics for the coverage categories. It doesn't name or differentiate against the siblings (ptet_rules, salt_cap, bonus_conformity), so an agent can infer the purpose but not the boundary vs those 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?

No indication of when to call this versus the sibling tools, or what the typical workflow (e.g. discover coverage before drilling into ptet_rules) looks like. The second half explains what fields mean rather than when to use the tool.

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