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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: each state's record has its own citation and verification status, records can be marked review_required, and such records are unsettled and must not be presented as settled rules. This is real output-semantics guidance rather than a restatement of the schema, though it omits any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope and then the caveat about review_required, which is the highest-risk information for an agent. The opening sentence is a noun phrase rather than a full clause, a minor structural roughness, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must supply behavior, and it does address the shape of returns (per-state records with citation and verification status) plus the review_required caveat. It does not fully describe the comparison result structure or how states are matched to topics, leaving a modest gap for a 2-parameter tool with a rich return surface.

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 both parameters (topic and states) are already documented with examples and format guidance in the schema. The description's only added constraint, 'accepts up to eight states,' duplicates the schema's 'Up to eight.' Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the specific resource and scope: the same compliance topic across several US states, which implicitly defines a comparison operation over multiple states. It is distinguishable from get_state_requirements (singular state) and get_filing_deadlines (deadlines), though the sibling contrast is inferred rather than stated, and no explicit verb like 'compare' leads the sentence.

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?

It gives concrete usage contexts – deciding where to incorporate, or an organization operating in more than one state – which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., single-state lookups should use get_state_requirements).

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