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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: it returns an empty/'none held' result when nothing exists rather than erroring. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape, but with annotations covering the safety profile a 3 is appropriate.

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 terse fragments with no wasted words, and the scope of what is held leads the description. The question-style opening is slightly unusual for a tool description but costs nothing in length.

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?

There is no output schema, and while readOnlyHint plus full schema descriptions cover much of the ground, the description never clarifies how this relates to get_transfer_framework or what pagination/large-result behavior to expect. Adequate but with clear gaps for a finder tool with two get/find siblings nearby.

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 limit, query, and offset, and the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'Optional name or jurisdiction words' loosely echoes the query parameter but adds no format or matching-rule detail beyond what the schema 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 states the resource (statewide or compact transfer frameworks) and frames the operation as a retrieval/list question, which is distinguishable from the singular sibling get_transfer_framework. However, the verb is implied rather than explicit and it never names the get_* counterpart, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the closely named get_transfer_framework, find_agreements, or find_comparability. The only implicit condition is that query words are optional, which is not a usage rule so much as a restatement of the schema.

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