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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost signal ('Free') and the idea of freshness expectations, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or what happens with partial jurisdiction input.

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, front-loaded with the cost qualifier and then the purpose. No padding, though the brevity contributes to the documentation gaps elsewhere.

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, so return values need not be explained, but with three undocumented optional parameters and no guidance on how to supply a jurisdiction, an agent cannot reliably construct a call. The description under-serves the tool's actual input complexity.

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 0% and the description never mentions city, state, or jurisdiction_id. It gives no guidance on whether they are alternatives, jointly required, or how to choose between them, leaving all three optional parameters semantically opaque.

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: returns public sources plus freshness expectations, scoped to a jurisdiction. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like check_* and get_source_health, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with resolve_jurisdiction or get_coverage.

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?

'Free.' signals cost but not when to call this versus resolve_jurisdiction, get_coverage, or get_source_health. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing is given.

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