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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it requires an account, it reports whether the jurisdiction is served, it returns per-ground fact requirements, and it exposes notice rules for the fictional state ZZ only under a test key. It stops short of noting rate limits or partial-result behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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-loads the trigger condition and then packs usage, exclusion, next tool, and auth into a short block with virtually no filler. The final sentences are somewhat run-on and mix routing with prerequisites, which costs a little readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: jurisdiction service status, per-ground fact requirements, and ZZ notice rules with a test key. Combined with the auth note and the explicit next step, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates that state is the input and that county/city are supplied 'when known', but adds no format or synthesis detail (such as the county naming convention or the ZZ test-state convention) beyond what the schema fields already say.

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 (resolve) and resource (jurisdiction) plus the exact question it answers: whether a case can be opened for a property's location and which facts each eviction ground requires there. It explicitly differentiates itself from evictions_get_state_eviction_facts, so an agent can pick correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('before creating a case'), a named alternative with its distinguishing property ('use evictions_get_state_eviction_facts, which needs no key'), the follow-up tool ('Next: evictions_create_case'), and the auth prerequisite (sign-in or API key). This is as complete a routing instruction as a tool description can carry.

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