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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context: 'Covers all 50 states' and 'No account needed,' plus a description of the output topics (e.g., 'how many witnesses, whether a notary is needed'). This goes beyond the annotations but does not contradict them. It doesn't detail output structure, but there is no output schema to compare.

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 about 60 words, front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then scope. No filler or repetition. It could be slightly tighter by merging the usage sentence, but it is well-structured.

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 simple lookup tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it lists the exact information returned, confirms national coverage, and states no authentication is needed. It doesn't cover error cases or state-specific exceptions, but these are not essential for the tool's purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%: both parameters have descriptive text (e.g., state says 'two-letter code or full name,' documentType says 'Omit to get requirements for all four'). The description reiterates the document types but adds no new parameter-specific nuance, so it meets the baseline without improving it.

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 begins with a specific verb-based purpose: 'Look up what a specific US state legally requires...' and enumerates the exact document types and legal details (witnesses, notary, barred witnesses, official forms). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_estate_planning_gaps (analysis) or get_after_loss_first_steps (post-death guidance).

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 explicitly states the trigger: 'Use this whenever someone asks what their state requires for estate planning or advance directive paperwork.' This is a clear when-to-use condition. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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