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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what information the tool returns (permit requirements, taxes, limits, zoning, operational rules), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope beyond the annotation flags.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the function, the second lists outputs, and the third clarifies required vs optional parameters. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly lists return categories, which covers expected results. It also gives parameter guidance. The only gap is ambiguity about behavior when city is omitted, but the 'state required, city optional' note largely addresses this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only lookup tool.

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?

The input schema already fully describes all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond restating that state is required and city/property_type are optional, which is a marginal contribution. It does not provide additional format details or usage nuances beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource: local short-term rental regulations for a specific city and state. It lists concrete outputs (permit requirements, occupancy taxes, etc.) that distinguish it from narrower sibling tools like check_str_permit_requirements or get_str_insurance_requirements.

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 description provides clear context (essential for host compliance) and explicitly notes required vs optional parameters (state required, city and property_type optional). However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over overlapping siblings like check_str_permit_requirements, nor does it state exclusions.

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