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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, return values, error conditions, or limitations. The tool could be read-only, mutate state, or perform network calls—none of this is indicated.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any substantive content and does not front-load useful information. A single phrase that restates the name has no informative 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, what it returns, or how the parameters interact, leaving the agent with no basis for correct invocation.

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% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no meaning about how parameters are used together or which combination is appropriate. The schema descriptions are independent, but the tool's overall behavior remains unclear, so it does not rise above the baseline.

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 'USPS state code MD' is a tautology—it restates the name without any verb or action. It does not state what the tool does with the code, whether it validates, returns, or formats it. The agent cannot infer the tool's function or distinguish it from siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The description provides no context about the tool's purpose or relationship to the 29 sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess.

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