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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: it is free and it does not touch property records, which is genuinely useful for cost and side-effect reasoning. Return format is left to the output schema, so nothing else is required.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the cost/scope qualifier and the routing purpose come first, and the alternative is deferred to the end. Every clause 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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% parameter description coverage, the description only needs to supply purpose, usage routing and cost/side-effect context — all of which it delivers. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 each of the three parameters carries its own description, including the California coverage hint, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or fallback detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Return released and held jurisdiction and operation coverage') and adds a scope constraint ('without querying property records') that separates it from the property-record siblings. An agent can identify what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the use case ('use this to plan routing') and the alternative with its selecting condition ('use resolve_jurisdiction when you have a specific address'). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern done fully.

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