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 needs no restating. The description still adds real context beyond them: it discloses the return shape (slug, name, level, parent), the level vocabulary, and the example slug mappings the agent will need downstream. It does not cover ordering or result size, which is a minor gap for a registry listing.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the critical routing fact, then the return shape, then the no-argument case. No filler and no repetition of the schema beyond what reinforces the workflow.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: how to call it, what comes back, the enumerated level values, and example conversions. Nothing essential is missing.

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 3 is the baseline, but the description goes further by explaining why the parameter matters: the slug this query resolves to is what every other Juriset tool consumes, with concrete name/abbreviation-to-slug examples. That downstream framing is meaning the schema does not convey, lifting it above baseline.

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 ('List the US and Canadian jurisdictions Juriset covers') plus the secondary mode ('find one by name'), and explicitly bounds it against the rule-oriented siblings with 'Reads the registry; no rule lookup.' An agent can distinguish this from get_rule or compare_jurisdictions 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?

Gives the decisive routing rule — 'The other Juriset tools take slugs, not names' — which tells the agent to call this first to resolve a name into a slug, and gives the exclusion ('no rule lookup') for when to use a sibling instead. 'Omit `query` for all of them' closes the remaining ambiguity about the no-argument case.

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