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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing exactly what payload comes back, including year-qualified figures (2026 ceiling, 2027 QCTs) and the per-capita/minimum basis breakdown — useful because no output schema exists. It does not say what happens for an unknown state code or a state with no published QAP, which is the remaining 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?

A single dense sentence with no filler — every listed item is substantive return content. It is front-loaded with the resource identity, though the missing verb makes the opening slightly awkward and the list is longer than strictly needed.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, naming each returned fact with its applicable year. It omits response format and invalid-state/empty-data behavior, which are the only meaningful omissions for a one-parameter read tool.

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% and the single `state` parameter is fully documented in the schema (two-letter code or name, examples given). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered params applies.

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 enumerates the specific resource being fetched — a state's allocating agency, QAP, state credit, 2026 9% ceiling, bond cap, and 2027 QCT/DDA counts — so an agent can clearly distinguish it from calculate_credits or check_qct_dda. It lacks an explicit verb ("Get/Return"), reading as a noun-phrase inventory of return fields rather than a statement of action, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the state-level lookup tool when it needs jurisdictional context. There is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative (e.g., check_qct_dda for a specific address's QCT status), and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

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