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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only, free operation with no auth, which covers much of the risk profile for a zero-parameter list endpoint. However, it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or any edge cases, leaving some behavioral details unspecified.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every clause earns its place: supported states, return contents, free, and no auth. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the included data points, and covers auth/cost. It could be slightly more explicit about the response contract, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics to document. The description still mentions the kind of data returned, which adds meaningful context even though no inputs are needed.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and a clear resource, 'supported US states,' and further specifies the returned content: geo types and per-trade availability. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_trades and search_contractors without ambiguity.

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?

It provides useful context by noting the tool is free and requires no auth, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no close sibling for listing states, so the absence is not misleading, but the guidance is only implied.

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