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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningfully beyond that: the 'Free' cost signal (not in annotations) and the distinction that this returns static metadata plus freshness expectations rather than live status.

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 short sentences, zero waste. The cost qualifier leads, the resource scope follows, and the sibling disambiguation is last.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations fully cover the safety profile, and params are documented at 100% coverage. For a read-only catalog lookup, the description supplies everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 all three jurisdiction-selection parameters (city, state, jurisdiction_id) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only the loose phrase 'for a jurisdiction' and no syntax or precedence guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is 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+resource: 'Return registered authoritative sources and freshness expectations for a jurisdiction.' This is clearly distinct from the sibling get_source_health, which the description itself names as the live-reachability tool.

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 routes the agent: use this to understand evidence sources, use get_source_health for current endpoint reachability. The when-to-use and the alternative are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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