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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'Free' cost disclosure, which is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields, but says nothing about latency, coverage-miss behavior, or fallback when a jurisdiction is unresolved.

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 fragments with the cost signal front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the terseness is close to under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 needn't be explained, but with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance against a large sibling set, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at 'address or place', leaving city, state, and unit undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent cannot tell how the extra fields interact with the required address.

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 ('Resolve ... to a LocalProof jurisdiction') plus the input (address or place) and the output (jurisdiction and coverage state). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_coverage, which sounds related.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many check_* siblings or get_coverage. 'Free' hints at cost but not at the decision of choosing this tool, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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