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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; 'Get ... URL' makes the read-only, non-mutating nature clear and it proactively warns that details should be confirmed on the official portal, hinting at possible staleness. It stops short of stating data freshness/rate limits or any auth requirements.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work (what is returned, when to trigger, a caution), with the return payload front-loaded. Slightly dense and could be trimmed, but nothing is filler.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and adding a verification caveat, which is sufficient for a one-parameter lookup. It leaves only minor gaps around data currency and source provenance.

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% and the single 'state' parameter is fully documented with format and an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the state concept without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the official SNAP application portal URL for a US state') and enumerates the payload (portal URL, agency name/phone, Feed America state guide) even though no output schema exists. The SNAP scope distinguishes it from the sibling feedam_get_state_wic_portal.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering user utterance ('how do I apply for SNAP in [state]?'), which is clear usage context. It never names alternatives or exclusions (e.g. 'for WIC use feedam_get_state_wic_portal'), so the agent must infer the boundary from the SNAP wording.

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