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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable interpretation context by warning that a none_found or unverified status reflects sources checked rather than proof that no law exists, and it advises verifying current official text before relying on a provision.

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 sentences and front-loads the return scope before adding the necessary verification caveats. Every sentence adds useful information with no wasted text.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with rich annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is complete enough: it enumerates the returned record contents and explains the key limitation around none_found or unverified status. No output schema is present, and the description adequately covers what the agent should expect.

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 schema has 100% description coverage and an enum of two-letter USPS state codes, so the parameter is already well documented. The description reinforces that the tool covers one US state or DC but does not add format or selection details 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the MORVS License Plate Reader Register's full state-law research record for one US state or DC. It clearly identifies the scope and content, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the related sibling plate_reader_decisions.

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 by the resource scope: use this for a single state's plate-reader law research record. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plate_reader_decisions or other search tools.

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