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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description meaningfully supplements this by stating the data is verified against official statutes and that every rule carries a citation and source link. This provenance context is valuable and not present in the structured fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core scope statement followed by a single informative enumeration of returned rule types. Slightly list-heavy but every item earns its place by telling the agent what content to expect.

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-only, single-parameter lookup with a complete schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly complete, and it even describes the returned content (rules with citations/source links). The only minor gap is that return format/pagination is not addressed, though no output schema exists to lean on.

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 single 'state' parameter is already fully documented in the schema with format and examples. The description only reinforces the one-state scope ('for one US state') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high 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?

The description opens with a precise scope statement ('Verified landlord-tenant rules for one US state') and then enumerates the exact rule categories returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling check_lease.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the sibling tool check_lease or any exclusion condition. The intended usage is only weakly implied by the content enumeration, leaving the agent to infer when this is preferable to checking a specific lease.

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