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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description is consistent with them (no write claims). It adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return content — statute citations, links, and an FAQ — which matters because no output schema exists. It omits operational traits such as caching, rate limits, or citation freshness.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the most decision-relevant content (what facts are returned) leading. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 it does so adequately (facts, citations, links, FAQ). Parameters are fully covered by the schema and the tool is read-only per annotations. It could have noted data scope or limitations, which is the only reason it is not a 5.

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%, with enum values and example doc ids fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. how 'state' formats are handled or what 'lang' affects) beyond what the schema already states.

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 and scope: state-law facts for a given document, enumerating the payload (deadlines, caps, required disclosures, statute citations, links, FAQ). That is far more concrete than a tautology, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like render_document or validate_document. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling by name.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_document_fields or validate_document, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage can only be inferred from the phrase 'for a document'. This matches the calibration case for a tool with no when-to-use guidance.

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