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

With no annotations (readOnly, destructive, etc.), the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or rate limits. As a listing tool, it is implicitly read-only, but this is not stated, leaving behavioral transparency lacking.

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, concise and well-structured. It provides the core purpose and immediately explains the key parameter's values without fluff, making it efficient and readable.

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?

The description is complete for a simple listing tool: it explains the purpose, parameter usage, and even default behavior (omit for all). It does not describe the output format, but no output schema is provided, and for a list operation this is acceptable. It could mention sorting or pagination, but these are not critical, so it earns a 4.

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 input schema already describes each parameter, but the description adds significant nuance for the posture parameter by explaining the meaning of each enum value (e.g., 'adopted_model_bulletin = adopted the NAIC bulletin'). This enriches the schema, though since and until are already clear. Coverage is high, and the added value justifies a score above the baseline.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List US jurisdictions by regulatory posture.' It specifies the verb (List), the resource (US jurisdictions), and the scope (by regulatory posture). It distinguishes from sibling tools by implying a list operation versus lookup or provenance.

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 provides usage guidance for the posture parameter (e.g., 'Use posture ... for states that adopted...'), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like lookup_jurisdiction or dataset_provenance. It lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, so it is only somewhat useful.

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