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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: concrete input-to-output mapping examples and the per-call cost via x402, which is important for the agent to know before invoking.

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?

The description is two short, focused sentences: the action in the first sentence, followed by concrete examples and cost in the second. There is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states the return shape ('full name plus abbreviation') and the example reinforces it. Cost, input variants, and basic safety are covered. It could be more complete by clarifying non-US/province input handling and what the optional algorithm parameter actually changes.

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 schema already documents both parameters with complete coverage. The description adds a modest amount of semantic detail about accepted state forms ('Calif', 'CA', 'Cal') and the output format, but the optional algorithm parameter is left entirely to the schema, which only identifies it as an optional variant.

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 uses a specific verb ('Standardize') with a precise resource ('US state/province names') and names the exact output form ('full name plus abbreviation'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling standardizers like interzoid_city_standard or interzoid_country_standard.

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 use case is implied by the scope ('US state/province names') and the expected output, but there is no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance, and meaningful sibling tools are not mentioned. An agent can infer when to call it, but the description does not actively route between the standardization siblings.

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