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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the useful constraint that output is a single rule/figure compared across states (i.e., one topic per call), but says nothing about the returned table's shape or coverage, so it only modestly exceeds the annotations.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the jurisdiction tag, with no filler. The topic enumeration duplicates the schema enum, which is a minor redundancy but also aids routing at a glance.

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 complete annotations, the description covers what the tool does and the scope of each call. There is no output schema, so a brief note on the returned comparison's format would have closed the remaining gap.

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% and the enum already lists all seven allowed values, so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description merely repeats that same value list and adds no syntax, default, or interpretation guidance beyond it.

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) and resource (one rule or figure across the states) and pins the jurisdiction with 'MEXICO.', which cleanly separates it from the many compare_states_* siblings for other countries. The enumerated topics further disambiguate what can be compared.

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: listing the seven comparable topics tells the agent what inputs are valid, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over guide_mx, home_prices_mx, or closing_costs_mx, and no exclusions.

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