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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the data is 'published public' and sourced from a 'canonical data page,' implying a stable, authoritative, publicly accessible dataset. It does not describe the return format, but the content being returned is clear.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then names the source. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered read tool, the description names exactly what is returned ('state names and descriptions') and where it comes from ('CHRP’s canonical data page'). The only minor omission is the exact return shape, such as whether results are returned as a list or object, which is not a significant blocker.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with high coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description. The baseline of 4 applies here since no parameter explanation is needed.

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 tool's action ('Get') and resource ('published public state names and descriptions from CHRP’s canonical data page'). It is specific enough to convey the primary purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling get_canonical_sources, which might also reference the canonical data page.

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 intended use is implied by the description and tool name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_canonical_sources or get_claim_boundaries. For a simple zero-parameter read tool this is a minor gap, but some routing context would improve it.

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