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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real value beyond them: no pagination, alphabetical ordering, inclusion of a count, editorial-only scope, and explicit 'public; no key needed' auth disclosure. It does not cover failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core action and scope, and every sentence carries information (ordering, count, exclusions, auth). Minor overlap between 'Public and read-only' and the readOnlyHint annotation is the only redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return shape (count plus state_code, title, slug) and the ordering. For a zero-parameter read tool this is complete enough to call blind.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly states 'Takes no parameters', which matches the empty schema and prevents the agent from hunting for filters.

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 (lists) and resource (every published state lien guide) with explicit scope: all 50 states and DC, in one response, no pagination. The plural 'every ... guide' plus the returned fields distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_state_lien_guide without needing to open either schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'does not indicate which states have calculated deadlines' hints that calculate_supplier_deadlines is the tool for deadline data, but no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not rule is given. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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