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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: the exact response payload (link, search_url, tips, checklist, scam warning) and the multi-state layout convention ('first is at the top level and the rest are 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 the purpose, then the return contents, then the multi-state note. The quoted example queries are slightly repetitive but they serve the routing function, so the length is largely earned.

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 2-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to reach for it, and what comes back. Only the relationship to the sibling get_sources 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 the schema already documents both parameters in detail (codes, DC/PR/UK, comma/'and' lists, 200-char limit, country default). The description only gestures at multi-state handling, which is already in the schema, so it adds little beyond the 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?

The description names a specific resource ('a state's official unclaimed property search') and states exactly what is returned (official search link, search_url, MissingMoney.com, tips, checklist, scam warning). It is clear what the tool does, though it never references its sibling get_sources, so an agent must infer the boundary between them.

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?

Four concrete caller-style examples ('do I have unclaimed money in Ohio?', UK, Texas, multi-state) make the intended use cases unmistakable, including the multi-state scenario. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming an alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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