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

With no annotations, the description fully handles behavioral transparency. It states the tool is deterministic ('No model'), consistent ('same input always gives the same answer'), honest about unknowns ('when the governing rules are unknown it says so rather than guessing'), and free. It does not detail error handling for invalid inputs, but the key behaviors are well covered.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and outputs, the second adds critical behavioral traits. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions key output components (verdict, requirements, cautions, confidence, citations) which is helpful. However, it does not explain the exact format or structure of the response, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema; it only mentions 'Jurisdiction slug or City, ST string' and enum values which are already in the schema. The free/no-API-key note is tool-level, not parameter-level.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Deterministic verdict on whether a short-term rental is allowed in a jurisdiction for a given use type.' It specifies the verb (check eligibility), resource (short-term rental in jurisdiction), and scope (including requirements, cautions, confidence, citations). It naturally distinguishes from siblings like get_lodging_tax and get_str_rules.

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 for when to use the tool: when a deterministic, free, no-API-key-needed eligibility check is required. It mentions behavioral traits like always giving the same answer and being honest when unknown. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it compared to sibling tools.

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