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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious domain behavior beyond that: some jurisdictions have no statewide fill-in forms, so omitting county can yield unusable results — a real caveat an agent needs. It omits pagination/result-count behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the what-it-returns inventory is front-loaded before the county guidance. The second sentence exists solely to prevent a foreseeable misuse (asking for statewide forms in a state that has none).

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it covers the key required/optional parameter split. It doesn't mention result limits or ordering beyond the county-first nuance, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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 schema already documents all three parameters including county's 'surfaces county forms first / omit for statewide' semantics. The description restates that plus the Florida example, adding only marginal meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find the probate forms for a jurisdiction') and enumerates exactly what each result contains (name, code, description, court source link, SwiftProbate page, county vs statewide flag). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lookup_county_guide or get_documents, which cover different resources.

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 an explicit conditional: pass the county when a state publishes no statewide fill-in forms (Florida cited), otherwise omit it for statewide results. It never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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