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

While annotations confirm it is read-only and idempotent, the description adds the critical behavioral constraint of operating 'without accessing private review records.' This provides vital operational context regarding the data boundaries.

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 definition is highly efficient, using a single sentence to cover the action, the scope, and the limitation, ensuring every word 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 that the input parameters are empty and annotations are strong, the description is complete. It clearly defines the specific subset of public data the tool interacts with.

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?

Since the input schema has zero parameters, the description cannot add semantic meaning to parameters. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 purpose is stated clearly with a specific verb ('Read') and defined resources ('supported jurisdictions, programs and evidence limits'). Crucially, it adds scope limitation, which differentiates its function from accessing full or private records.

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 implies usage by stating what it *does not* access ('without accessing private review records'), serving as a negative guideline. However, it does not explicitly compare its use case against the listed sibling tools.

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