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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP endpoint, that it returns the full list, the row count (52), and the fields included. For a zero-parameter read-only directory this is sufficient; it does not need to discuss side effects or auth. It could add pagination or caching details, but none are likely needed for such a simple fixed list.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The endpoint and scope are front-loaded, followed by the return shape and use case, and finally the sibling alternative. Every sentence 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, parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what it will get (52 rows, specific fields) and how to interpret it. It also points to the right tool when completeness is needed. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of the return value (resolving names to codes and enumerating coverage), which is useful context. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('states & jurisdictions'), enumerates exactly what is included (50 states, D.C., U.S. Congress), and lists the returned fields (state_id, 2-letter code, full name). It also distinguishes itself from get_coverage by scope, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to resolve a name to a code or enumerate everything the corpus covers. It also names the alternative (get_coverage) and the condition that selects it (when you need data completeness per jurisdiction). This is clear routing guidance.

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