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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates the return contents (statute citation, plain-language summary, a facts list with specific sub-items), declares coverage scope, warns that four named states have no refusal provision and that no witness/notary requirement should be reported for them, and discloses the error behavior for an unknown state. This is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond any structured field.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with purpose and routing before edge cases, and nearly every sentence (coverage, the four-state exception, the error behavior) carries distinct information. Slightly long, but the length is justified by the tool's edge cases.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior, and it does: it lists what is returned, the coverage domain, the special-case states, and the failure mode. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

The single 'state' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what happens on an invalid value ('An unknown state is an error listing every code it accepts'), which is validation behavior the schema does not convey.

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 opening sentence names the exact resource (one US jurisdiction's anatomical-gift refusal requirements) and the description immediately distinguishes it from the sibling get_faq ('use get_faq for a general one'). An agent can tell what this returns and how it differs from alternatives without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Use this for any question naming a state; use get_faq for a general one.' It also flags the coverage boundary (all 50 states + DC) and the special-case states where no refusal provision exists, telling the agent what NOT to report for those four.

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