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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context by stating the source ('sourced from NAAG') and summarizing the returned fields, but it does not disclose any deeper behavioral traits such as result completeness, date-range handling quirks, or source limitations.

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?

Three sentences cover definition, sample questions, and return shape without obvious filler. The structure front-loads the resource and then gives usage examples, which is efficient, though the first sentence is slightly long and could be tightened.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no required parameters and well-described schema fields, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: what data it searches, what questions it answers, and what fields come back. It does not explain how filters combine or what pagination defaults are, but those are already covered by the parameter descriptions and annotations.

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 schema already explains each parameter including `query`, `state`, `limit`, `offset`, and the `sent_from`/`sent_to` date bounds. The prose description adds some domain flavor (e.g., robocalls, AI, opioids) and ties 'signing states' to the `state` parameter, but it does not materially clarify parameter meaning 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 clearly identifies the resource ('multistate coalition policy letters') and what it returns (title, date, signing states, summary), so an agent can tell what the tool exposes. It differentiates from the NAAG-related siblings by emphasizing letters/positions rather than cases or press releases, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 gives concrete query patterns ('have state AGs written to the FCC about this' and 'which states signed that coalition letter'), which tells the agent the kinds of tasks this tool serves. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for selection.

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