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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does show the boundary of the operation: it lists all such jurisdictions and filters by availability of permit data. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or auth, but those are minor for a zero-parameter read-only list.

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?

The description is one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or repeated information from the tool name.

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 simple, zero-input listing tool, the description is fully sufficient: it identifies the geographic scope, the inclusion criterion, and the operation. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys the high-level return content.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so the description does not need to document inputs. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 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?

The description states a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('all AZ jurisdictions with permit data available'). It clearly differentiates this from the sibling permit-lookup tools by focusing on jurisdictions rather than individual permits.

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 usage context is implied: it should be used when an enumeration of Arizona jurisdictions with permit data is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, leaving referral decisions to inference.

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