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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: it promises a 'federal-level result now', discloses that state-specific detail is gated behind a $49 report, and includes a 'Not legal advice' disclaimer. No contradiction with annotations.

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 cover purpose, output scope/limitation with a link, and legal disclaimer without wasted words. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded before the paid-report upsell and disclaimer.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description gives only a vague 'federal-level result' and does not describe the result shape, format, or how the score is presented. Input semantics are well covered by the schema, but the output side is under-specified for an agent deciding whether the returned answer fully satisfies the user's need.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including required fields. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Score') and a concrete resource ('a subscription business's signup/cancellation flow') anchored to named laws (FTC Section 5/ROSCA, CA AB 2863, CO SB25-145, etc.). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the other compliance-check siblings.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: an immediate federal-level check, with the 'full state-by-state breakdown... separate $49 report' acting as an explicit exclusion for deeper state-level needs. However, it does not name an in-catalog sibling alternative or phrase a formal when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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