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), so the description could coast—but instead it discloses the return shape (citation, summary, facts list), coverage (50 states + DC), the special behavior of four 1968-act states ('facts report none', do not report witness/notary), and the exact error behavior for bad input.

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 routing are front-loaded, and the detailed facts-list enumeration plus the four-state caveat are dense but earn their place given there is no output schema. It is a touch long, but no sentence is filler.

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 fully carries return-value burden and pre-empts the biggest trap—misreporting witness/notary requirements for DE, FL, NY, PA. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the result without any other source.

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 single 'state' param already documents that a name or two-letter postal code is accepted with an example. The description only adds that an invalid value errors with an enumeration of accepted codes, which is marginal beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: what one US jurisdiction requires to refuse an anatomical gift. It distinguishes itself from the singular/plural siblings by telling the agent to use this one for a question naming a state, and explicitly points to get_faq for the general case.

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?

"Use this for any question naming a state; use get_faq for a general one" gives an explicit selection rule plus the alternative to use otherwise. It also anticipates the error case (unknown state) so the agent knows the failure mode rather than discovering it at call time.

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