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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it is free, held/unsupported jurisdictions 'fail closed before paid work', and it is a prerequisite step to deeper research — useful operational context not present in structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the cost signal ('Free.') and then the purpose, followed by the routing rule and the failure-mode caveat. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the remaining agent needs: cost, ordering relative to deeper research, sibling routing, and fail-closed behavior on unsupported jurisdictions.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including city/state disambiguation and the CA-only constraint. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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: resolving one address or place to a supported jurisdiction and coverage state. It also names the adjacent sibling (get_coverage) and the scope boundary ('before deeper research'), so an agent can distinguish it from the other 13 LocalProof tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when jurisdiction support is unknown') and explicit alternative with its own condition ('use get_coverage to inspect published coverage without resolving a property'). Nothing is left to inference.

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