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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the output includes each jurisdiction's key, level, data platform, source dataset URL, and live record count, and the split by type. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect without contradicting any annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action verb 'List'. It packs in all essential details—scope, split, and specific output fields—without any unnecessary words. Every clause earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It specifies exactly what the returned list will contain and its relationship to sibling search tools. There is no glaring omission such as pagination or filtering, since none apply.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema shows an empty object. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the schema fully covers this aspect.

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 the verb 'List' and specifies the resource ('US state & local jurisdictions covered by this pack'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the split into contract-award and spending/checkbook jurisdictions, tying them to gov_contracts_search and gov_spending_search.

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 by referencing the two sibling search tools and explaining that this tool lists jurisdictions covered by each. While it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need an overview, use search tools for actual searches', the implication is strong enough to guide an agent. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, so not a 5.

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