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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the content is fixed reference material (the 4 permanent states, the layer taxonomy), which tells the agent results are static and not user-specific. It says nothing about size or format of the returned reference, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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, with the usage trigger front-loaded ahead of the content inventory. The second sentence is a fragmentary list rather than a clause, but every element in it (states, codes, order, layers, output scope) maps to something the agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 reference tool with an output schema present, the description covers the trigger and the scope of returned knowledge, which is enough to select and call it. The only thing an agent might still want — an explicit pointer to the sibling that returns actual state values — is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is no parameter surface requiring explanation. The description correctly does not invent any input dimensions.

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 names a specific resource (DAMO's states, codes, timeframe order, verified/live layers) and frames it as a glossary/reference lookup rather than data retrieval. It implicitly separates itself from get_market_state/get_market_states by scoping the answer to 'what DAMO outputs (state data only)', though it never names those siblings as the alternative for actual values.

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 opening clause 'Use when the user asks what DAMO's states, codes or layers mean' is an explicit, actionable trigger condition. It stops short of a when-not statement or naming get_market_state as the path for live state values, so routing for the adjacent case is left to inference.

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