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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial extra context: exactly what each returned rule contains (disclosure requirement, timing, applicability, effective/sunset dates, in-force status, citation, verbatim quote, source URL, as-of date) plus the FCC/TCPA framing. It also disclaims 'informational, not legal advice', which is useful behavioral guidance.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the invocation modes, then the enumerated return contents. It is on the longer side and the enumeration of rule fields could be trimmed, but every sentence carries information relevant to calling or interpreting the tool.

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 fully compensates by describing the shape and fields of each returned rule, the scope options, and the safety profile via annotations. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: both parameters are optional and omitting them returns rules 'for every jurisdiction'. It also reiterates that a phone number's area code resolves to a state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the laws requiring AI/bot/prerecorded-voice disclosure) and scopes it precisely to US states, Canadian provinces, phone numbers, or all jurisdictions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_state_calling_rules and recording_consent_rules by its AI-disclosure focus.

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 tells the agent the ways to invoke it: pass a state, a phone number, or nothing to cover 'every jurisdiction'. It gives clear contextual usage but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when a different sibling (e.g. recording_consent_rules) is preferred.

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