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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the comparison is scoped to states 'whose official rates Payotte read,' i.e., a coverage limitation. It says nothing about the table's shape, row granularity, or how states lacking data are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with jurisdiction and topic scope. The unexplained proper noun 'Payotte' costs it a point, since an agent cannot tell whether that is the data vendor or a filter, but nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: jurisdiction, verb, and the two permitted topics. The data-coverage caveat is a nice touch. Return format need not be explained absent an output schema, though row-level granularity would help.

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% with a single enum parameter, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description restates the two enum values ('purchase-duty', 'women-buyer-rates') but adds no meaning beyond them, such as units, rate basis, or what a women-buyer-rate comparison actually contains. 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 verb (compared) plus the resource (one Indian property rule) and enumerates the exact topics covered (purchase-duty, women-buyer-rates). This clearly separates it from single-jurisdiction siblings like stamp_duty_in, though it never names an alternative outright. The leading 'INDIA' makes jurisdiction unambiguous in a list crowded with US/AU/UK/French tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over stamp_duty_in, guide_in, or the other compare_states_* tools. Usage can only be inferred from the enumerated topics, and the description never states what a caller should already know (e.g., that it returns a cross-state table rather than a single-state rate).

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