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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses the sourcing/citation model, the verification status field, the review_required unsettled caveat, and the important limitation that only a subset of records is returned rather than the whole state. It omits auth requirements and any pagination details for retrieving the remainder.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then layered caveats in short sentences. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on domain list and the citation/verification sentence could be tightened.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (sourced records with citations and verification status), the correctness caveat for review_required, and the truncation behavior. Missing only the mechanics of fetching the remainder and any freshness/coverage limits.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples, and the description adds only that topic narrowing is optional and loose-matched. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?

States a specific verb+resource: nonprofit compliance requirements for one US state, with an explicit enumeration of the domains covered (formation, governance, solicitation, reporting, tax, employment). The phrase 'one US state' implicitly separates it from the compare_states sibling, but no sibling is named outright.

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 a usage hint ('Optionally narrow by topic') and a presentation rule for review_required records, which is real guidance for how to use the results. It stops short of saying when to reach for this tool over get_filing_deadlines or compare_states, so selection is left largely to inference.

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