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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 90-day staleness cutoff, per-fact citations/source links/dates/quotes, the general-information disclaimer, empty-state behavior, and no-auth ('No key needed'). This is far richer than the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with usage and densely packed with return-value detail; every clause carries information. It is a single long run-on paragraph rather than cleanly segmented, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes little.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full return-shape burden and does so thoroughly: opening answer, verified/sourced facts with citation metadata, staleness rule, page link, disclaimer, and empty-state. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 100% and the schema already documents the accepted formats (two-letter code, name, slug) including the DC special case. The description restates 'two-letter code, a name or a slug' without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource: retrieving how eviction works in one state, with concrete examples (notice for nonpayment, the court). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as evictions_resolve_jurisdiction and case-management 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?

Explicitly names the trigger ('when the person asks how eviction works in one state') and two exclusions with alternatives: not for whether a case can be opened (use evictions_resolve_jurisdiction) and not for advice on a particular case. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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