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

The description discloses that the tool returns rules data filtered by jurisdiction, key, and date, which is consistent with the readOnly and idempotent annotations. However, it does not describe the output format, whether multiple rows are returned, or what happens when no match is found. The behavior is predictable for a simple lookup but lacks explicit detail.

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 brief and to the point, using a single sentence to convey the tool's purpose and filtering options. The parenthetical list of data attributes is informative without redundancy. No unnecessary words except perhaps 'Free.', which is minimal.

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?

While the description covers the tool's input and general purpose, it omits any mention of the response structure (e.g., fields returned, list vs. single object). The 'Free.' phrase is unexplained and could confuse. For a simple read-only lookup, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All three parameters (key, date, jurisdiction) have clear descriptions in the schema, including examples, defaults, and enumeration values. The jurisdiction enum perfectly matches the stated 14 jurisdictions. No parameter lacks 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing statutory rates and parameters, and mentions it is filterable by jurisdiction, key, and date. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', but the meaning is unambiguous. The tool serves as the base query for rules data among its siblings.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (ccpcrate_explain, ccpcrate_group, ccpcrate_resolve). The only hint is that it is filterable, implying it is the direct data accessor. The trailing 'Free.' adds no actionable guidance and may confuse.

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