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

No annotations are provided and the description reveals none of the tool's behavior: no return value, side effects, validation semantics, or access requirements. For a tool with an operation implied only by its name, this is a critical gap.

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 short but under-specified rather than appropriately concise; it omits the operational content that would earn its place. There is no structure such as a purpose statement or usage note.

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?

With 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to support correct invocation. It leaves unanswered what the tool checks or returns, how parameters are used, and what a successful call looks like.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is a 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter information. The description does not clarify how any of these parameters relate to the 'NH state code' purpose.

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 is a noun phrase ('USPS state code NH') with no verb or stated operation, so it does not clearly say what the tool does. It largely restates the tool name and gives no basis to distinguish st-nh from the many shape-checker 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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, what inputs trigger it, or which sibling tools are alternatives. An agent cannot decide between st-nh and tools like domain-shape or wiki-title-ok.

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