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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful non-obvious context by noting 'Covers all 50 states' and 'No account needed.' These are beyond the structured annotation fields and help the agent understand scope and authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured: primary purpose and scope first, then usage trigger, coverage, and authentication note. Every sentence adds new information and there is no repetition of the tool name or title.

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 lookup tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the input scope, output categories, state coverage, and authentication needs. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what information the agent should expect.

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%, and the schema already documents state as two-letter code or full name and documentType as an omit-able enum. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and identifies a clear resource: legal requirements for four named estate-planning document types by US state. It also lists the specific details returned (witnesses, notary, barred witnesses, official form), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like assess_estate_planning_gaps.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this whenever someone asks what their state requires for estate planning or advance directive paperwork.' It does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of the highest guidance level.

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