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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'available means data was read, not verified, undisputed or personal eligibility', programRules returns one upstream compiled record, and the endpoint returns English natural-language text with pagination preserved.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is dense and semicolon-heavy, and several clauses restate the schema's program/visaSubclass guidance almost verbatim. Sentences are information-bearing but the length is at the edge of readability.

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 read tool with no output schema and only 60% param coverage, the description covers prerequisites, scoping, section selection, and data-quality caveats. What remains thin is the exact shape of returned blocks per section, but that is largely optional for invocation.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it explains the identity-reuse rule for program/visaSubclass ('reuse the exact state/visaSubclass/program identity previously returned') and warns that user-provided pathway names are not verified API identities. It also gives per-section usage examples that the schema does not.

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 ('Read selected policy blocks for one state') and constrains it with 'sections is required and nonempty'. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_state_nomination and get_state_nomination_occupations, though it never explicitly contrasts itself against them by name.

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?

Gives explicit selection criteria ('start with the fewest blocks directly relevant...; fees for costs; application and policyNotes for state deadlines') and names the prerequisite alternative tool ('first call get_state_nomination_occupations without program'). It also states when program/visaSubclass are required vs omitted and how they scope programRules only.

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