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

ReadOnlyHint already marks it safe; the description adds its own caveat that it is general information, not legal advice, and enumerates exactly what the tool returns (disclosure rule, consent rule, statute, federal baseline, script). No hidden mutations or side effects are implied and nothing contradicts the annotation.

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 front-loads the key subject and lists contents compactly after a colon, with no filler. The first sentence is long and could be split, but every element earns its place.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, it explains not just what question it answers but the exact fields returned and the federal/state scope. It doesn't say what happens for invalid states or missing company, but that is secondary for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%: both state and company are described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the schema carries the burden; 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (state-specific AI caller disclosure rules), the trigger contexts (answering missed calls or placing outbound calls), and the output contents. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'return', and it doesn't explicitly separate itself from answer_ai_caller_question, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description gives a concrete when-to-use context: when an AI voice assistant answers missed calls or places approved outbound calls, and it scopes the lookup to US states. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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