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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the coverage constraint ('supported states') and the licensing qualifier, which is useful, but says nothing about result format, pagination, or behavior on unsupported ZIPs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and filters in order of importance. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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 output schema, the description should say more about what a match returns and what happens outside supported states. It is adequate for a simple read-only lookup but leaves the coverage caveat and result shape unstated.

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 coverage is 67%: zip and lines carry descriptions while limit is only bounded by min/max with no explanation of its meaning. The description maps to zip and line type but adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (find), resource (licensed homeowners agents), and scope (supported states) plus the two filtering dimensions. The resource is unique among the siblings, which are all consumer bind/policy/service tools or calculators, so an agent can distinguish it, though no sibling is named 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about what to do when a ZIP falls outside the supported states. The phrase 'supported states' hints at a constraint but never explains it or points to an alternative tool.

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