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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety and non-mutating behavior are covered. The description goes beyond that with critical behavioral details: the all-jurisdiction timeout, the page-ordering semantics for 'legislature' (upper then lower), the non-equivalence of omitting org_classification vs 'legislature', and the behavior of include options. This adds meaningful context not present in annotations alone.

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 dense paragraph but is front-loaded with purpose and core constraints. Each sentence adds distinct information (timeout, alternatives, ID usage, include options, org_classification nuance). While it is long, it earns its length given the tool's complexity. It could be restructured with bullets for readability, but no sentence is redundant.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, an output schema, and complex filtering logic. The description covers all the essential usage aspects: the required scoping, the distinction between filters, the integration with other tools' output IDs, and the behavior of include options. It leaves nothing ambiguous for an agent to resolve at runtime.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter in detail (e.g., id, jurisdiction, org_classification, include). The description reinforces but does not significantly extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. For instance, the optionality and timeout constraint are restated, but the schema already explains the required-ness and the meaning of org_classification values. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact resource ('state legislators and officials'), the actions ('search by name, jurisdiction, chamber, or district, or fetch specific people by OCD person ID'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools. It uses specific verbs and mentions the key distinguishing capability (fetching by ID), which sets it apart from openstates_search_bills, _committees, and _events.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use openstates_list_jurisdictions to pick a jurisdiction, or openstates_get_legislators_by_location when you have coordinates but no state.' It also states the hard constraint that jurisdiction or id is required and explains the timeout limitation, which tells the agent not to attempt unscoped searches. The alternatives are named and conditions for choosing them are clear.

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