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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral detail by noting it 'returns structured multi-mode profiles,' and the content coverage list gives insight into the response scope. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and free of redundancy. Every phrase adds value, balancing action, content, usage, and return structure.

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, low-complexity tool with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what data it covers, and what to expect in return. It is sufficiently complete without needing to restate schema details.

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% for both parameters, so the schema fully documents state_code and mode. The description's mention of 'multi-mode profiles' provides a minimal hint about the mode parameter but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('state-level land intelligence data'), listing concrete content areas (regulation, climate, solar potential, water access, building codes). It distinguishes from property-specific sibling tools by stating it provides general state context 'before drilling into a specific property.'

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 explicitly says 'Call this when the user wants general context about a US state before drilling into a specific property,' giving a clear use case. It implies exclusion of property-specific queries but does not explicitly name alternatives like get_solar_potential or analyze_land.

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