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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read-only, closed-world lookup, so the description correctly spends its space elsewhere. It adds real behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields (a critical addition given there is no output schema) and by stating provenance: 'Verified against the statute text.' It stops short of noting coverage limits, such as what happens for states without an SSPA.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the facet list placed after the colon. Every clause earns its place by promising specific return content. Dense, but the density is functional rather than padded.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the fields an agent will receive and asserting verification. The required 'state' argument is fully covered by the schema. The main remaining gap is that it doesn't say which states are covered or what an unknown state returns.

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% — the single 'state' parameter is documented with type and examples ('Texas' or 'north-carolina'). The description adds no syntax, slug-format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 names a specific resource and scope: a single US state's Structured Settlement Protection Act rules for selling settlement payments, and enumerates the exact facets covered (waiting period, advice rule, cancellation right, approving court, citation). An agent can tell this is the state-level SSPA lookup without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_states or value_payment_stream, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions that list_states is the way to discover valid state slugs, nor how this differs from value_payment_stream when a user asks about selling a settlement. Usage is only inferable from the noun phrase itself.

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