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. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the result cap of 25, the one-state constraint, the recency window, and the exclusion of phones and owners.

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 definition is a single tightly packed sentence with no wasted clauses. The cap, source scope, recency, omitted fields, and preview purpose are all front-loaded and each clause contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only sample tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: result size, state scope, recency, and omitted fields. It does not describe exact returned fields or error behavior, but nothing critical is missing for this tool's purpose.

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%, and the single state parameter is already documented as a two-letter state code. The description reinforces that filings come from one state, but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states what the tool returns: up to 25 filings from one state, drawn from a complete week at least one week old, with phones and owners omitted. It is specific about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate this preview/sample tool from siblings such as county_activity or find_license.

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 phrase 'to show what the feed contains' implies the tool is for previewing or sampling feed content. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives like county_activity or find_license.

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