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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the returned provenance (citation, quote, source URL, as-of date), that unverifiable rules are surfaced, and adds a scope disclaimer ('Informational, not legal advice').

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence covers the no-argument mode. The middle clause is a long, comma-heavy enumeration of rule types, which is informative but slightly dense; still no wasted sentences.

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, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does: rule categories, per-rule provenance fields, and the unverified-rules caveat, plus the distinct shape of the no-argument overview. An agent knows what it will get in either mode.

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 sole parameter's accepted forms (code 'OK' or name 'Oklahoma') are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the omit-for-overview behavior that the schema also notes, adding no new format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 (Show/List) and resource (calling rules Call Desk holds), plus the exact scope: one US state, DC, territory or Canadian province. The enumerated rule categories (time zones/area codes, calling-hours, recording consent, AI disclosure, automated messages) make it easy to distinguish from siblings like recording_consent_rules or ai_voice_disclosure_rules, which cover only one slice.

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?

Clearly defines the two usage modes: pass a state for one jurisdiction, omit it for the all-jurisdiction overview table (hours stricter than federal, no-stricter-rule states, all-party recording states). That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as can_i_call_now for a real-time decision, so it is not a 5.

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