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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the conditional Florida-versus-referral outcome and the URL component of the response. It does not mention error handling or exact response shape, but that is a minor gap for a simple read-only lookup.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the input, the output, and the key special case without wasted words. The title also provides a useful human-readable paraphrase. Every clause contributes to meaning.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description sufficiently characterizes the input, the behavior, and the output components (decision plus URL). Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing. The simplicity of the tool keeps the description complete.

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 only parameter, 'state', is already fully described in the schema with format guidance and examples. The description merely repeats 'US state' and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the parameter documentation burden adequately.

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 is specific: 'Given a US state, returns whether Jacob Campbell can represent a consumer there (Florida) or can only refer them to a licensee in that state (everywhere else), plus the URL of the relevant page.' It clearly identifies the resource, the action, and the special-case logic. This naturally distinguishes it from siblings like get_licensee or explain_referral.

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 clearly establishes the input condition ('Given a US state') and the decision it resolves, so an agent knows when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for selection.

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