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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses which states are actually researched versus which silently degrade to general notes, and it flags the output as research notes rather than legal advice. That coverage/fidelity disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations. It does not describe response size or freshness of the research, which keeps it at 4.

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 payload is front-loaded in a single sentence that leads with the value proposition, followed by two short fragments for coverage and disclaimer. Almost every element earns its place, though the lane list and field list make the first sentence dense and slightly scannable-poor. No filler or repetition.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned components (status, rule, gate, open counsel questions, sources). Combined with the researched-state coverage statement and the not-legal-advice caveat, an agent knows what to send, what it will get back, and how to weigh it. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter read 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'state' parameter is documented as a two-letter code, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds one piece of semantic meaning — that non-researched state values still return something (general notes) rather than erroring — but gives no hints about accepted casing or full names. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete resource — state brokering rules broken out by lane (investor real estate, consumer, working capital, SBA, cards) — and enumerates the fields returned (status, rule, gate, open counsel questions, sources). That is far more specific than the title alone, and the subject matter (state-level regulatory rules) naturally sets it apart from the lender-oriented siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any named sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer it is the tool for state-specific brokering compliance questions. The description does add a useful boundary — six researched states, with all others falling back to general notes — but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like lender_program or industry_overview, nor any prerequisites. Adequate context, no explicit routing.

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