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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the exact return payload (official link, search_url, MissingMoney.com, tips, claim checklist, scam warning) and the multi-state output layout (first state at top level, rest in more_states).

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 purpose, then examples, then return values, all directly relevant. Slightly padded by restating the title ("Find My Money. A state's official unclaimed property search.") and by a long run of quoted examples, but nothing 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so, listing the payload and the multi-state structure. It is close to complete for a two-parameter read tool; only the sibling relationship is left unaddressed.

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 (state, country) are already well documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only a small increment via the multi-state output note, no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and scope: retrieving a state's official unclaimed property search, with concrete query examples that pin down the intent. It does not, however, distinguish itself from its sibling findmymoney_get_sources, which is the natural alternative an agent might confuse it with.

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?

The quoted example phrasings ("do I have unclaimed money in Ohio?", "I've lived in Ohio, Texas and California, where do I look?") give clear triggering context for when to use the tool, including the multi-state case. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to the sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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