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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include statute links and cover a broad set of subtopics, which is useful context, but says nothing about return format detail beyond that. Adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, then lists the covered topics compactly. No filler or redundancy; every clause conveys a substantive coverage fact.

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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what domains of information come back (witnesses, notarization, e-wills, tax, statute links), which is enough to call it correctly. It does not describe the response structure or edge cases like unsupported jurisdictions, a minor gap.

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 in the schema (full name or two-letter code). The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or validation detail beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Look up') and a precise resource ('how to sign a valid will in a U.S. state'), then enumerates the covered subtopics: witnesses, notarization, self-proving affidavits, holographic wills, e-wills/RON, and state estate/inheritance tax. This is clearly distinct from siblings like create_will or get_bequest_language.

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 makes the retrieval context clear ('look up how to sign a valid will'), which implicitly separates it from the creation-oriented siblings (create_will, add_charity_to_existing_will). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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