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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description still adds two pieces of context not in structured fields: the call is free (cost), and the response is a reachability report that deliberately omits source records, which prevents the agent from expecting catalog data.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the cost signal and the key scope constraint. It could still afford a clause on how to identify the jurisdiction given the parameter gap, but nothing is wasted.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. The gap is the fully undocumented optional parameter set on a tool where the agent must decide how to target a jurisdiction, which the description does not resolve.

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?

All three parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not name or explain city, state, or jurisdiction_id. 'For a jurisdiction' only loosely hints that a jurisdiction selector is required, leaving the agent to guess whether to pass city+state or jurisdiction_id and what happens when none are supplied.

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 (probe), resource (currently registered official sources), scope (for a jurisdiction) and output intent (report reachability). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the source-listing sibling by noting it does not return source records, though it never names get_source_catalog or get_coverage directly.

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 leading 'Free.' gives a cost cue and 'without returning source records' implies contrast with a catalog tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_source_catalog, get_coverage, or resolve_jurisdiction. Usage is inferable as a diagnostic probe but not spelled out.

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