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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds useful non-structured detail about what the payload contains (status buckets, counts, requirement text, open questions). No output schema exists, so this return-content disclosure carries real weight.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource, with the usage rule trailing. The parenthetical status enumeration is dense but each element maps to real return content, so little is wasted.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description competently stands in for the response shape by naming the statuses and accompanying data. Adequate for a fixed, read-only reference list, though it stops short of enumerating the exact status vocabulary.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (NASAA's IAR CE jurisdiction map) and the fields returned: status this year, counts, requirement, open questions. It reads as the aggregate counterpart to the singular sibling iar_ce_state, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering question type: "Use for any 'which states require IAR CE' question." That is clear context for selection, but it does not name iar_ce_state as the single-state alternative, so the routing between the two siblings is left to inference.

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