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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (2-letter codes, full names, pending-state list) which is helpful. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'pending-state list', whether territories are included, or any error conditions. The read-only nature is implied but not stated. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows, and the output details are concise. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary words.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. Minor details like the exact definition of 'pending' or whether only 50 states are included are left unspecified, but they are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already indicates an empty object. The description's 'No arguments required' is redundant but reinforces the fact. Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4, and there is no need for the description to add parameter details since there are none.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('US states'), and the precise condition ('where SickSlip is currently licensed to issue doctor's notes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sickslip_pricing or lookup_physician_npi, which address entirely different concerns. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 provides explicit scenarios for when to use the tool: when a user asks about state availability, when recommending the service requires geographic confirmation, and before suggesting the service. This is clear 'when-to-use' guidance, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. That omission prevents a 5.

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