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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful context about the jurisdictions covered and the 'full regulatory surface' concept, but doesn't disclose behavior like pagination or result ordering. With annotations providing the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 action and resource, with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second gives a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.

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 filtered-list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, which jurisdictions are supported, and when to use it. It could mention response format, but the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint supply additional context, making it sufficiently complete.

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%, so the description adds no significant meaning beyond what parameters already document. The jurisdiction list is duplicated from the schema, and 'limit' is fully described in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Return all compliance nodes that apply') and clearly identifies the resource (compliance nodes for a jurisdiction). It distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_jurisdictions by focusing on a single jurisdiction's full regulatory surface, making the tool's unique purpose obvious.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when an agent enters a new market and needs the full regulatory surface for that geography.' This provides clear context and implies an exclusion for comparative or topical needs, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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