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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the data is 'informational only — not legal advice', which provides a behavioral caveat. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already imply.

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, no wasted words. It clearly states the purpose, source, and disclaimer. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already cover the behavioral aspects, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (US states with record counts) and includes necessary context (source and disclaimer). No missing information.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, 0 required, schema coverage 100%). The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 clearly states it returns 'US state jurisdictions with AI-law record counts', specifying both the resource (list of US states) and the associated data (record counts). This is a specific verb+resource combination, and no sibling tool has a similar name, so it distinguishes itself well.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the data source and a disclaimer. Among siblings like 'list_countries' and 'list_jurisdictions', it would be helpful to note when to choose this tool over those, but no such guidance is given.

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