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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the response contents (quoted statutes, section numbers, source links, read dates) and the four status categories (encadre, interdit, sans-texte, nomme-sans-regles), plus the 'statutes, not legal advice' caveat.

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?

Everything is packed into one long run-on sentence whose opening clause delays the core action, followed by a useful but dense status glossary. The status definitions earn their place, but the middle enumeration of countries and the stacked list of return fields could be restructured for faster scanning.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so well (status, statutory text, section numbers, sources, dates). It never states the behavior for an unsupported or misspelled jurisdiction, which is the main remaining gap for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 100% and the schema already shows accepted formats ('Michigan', 'MI', 'Quebec', 'us-ca'). The description constrains the domain of valid values by listing covered states, provinces, and countries, but it does not enumerate them or clarify format rules beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states exactly what the tool returns: whether a statute names electric skateboards in a given jurisdiction, what it requires, quoted statutory text with section numbers, source links, and read dates. The resource (electric skateboard legality by jurisdiction) is unmistakable and shares no overlap with the shopping-oriented 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated. There is no explicit 'when to use' guidance, no mention of what happens for unsupported jurisdictions, and no named alternative tool. The 'not legal advice' caveat is a caution rather than invocation guidance.

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