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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuine value by disclosing what is returned (official link, search_url, MissingMoney.com, tips, claim checklist, scam warning). It doesn't cover rate limits or failure modes, but for a safe read tool this is above adequate.

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 examples are front-loaded, and the sentence enumerating return contents is useful given there is no output schema. The multiple sample questions add length but each reinforces a distinct use case, so little 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 compensates by listing the returned artifacts and explaining the top-level vs more_states layout for multi-state calls. Combined with annotations and 100% schema coverage, an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly.

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 fully documented in the schema itself; the description adds no syntax or format detail for state/country. The multi-state note describes output layout rather than parameter semantics. 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 (a state's official unclaimed property search) with a clear verb sense, and the example queries make the domain concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_sources, so it falls short of a 5.

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 bracketed user questions ("do I have unclaimed money in Ohio?", "I've lived in Ohio, Texas and California, where do I look?") give clear, realistic contexts that select this tool. No explicit when-not or alternative routing against get_sources is provided.

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