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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing the specific kinds of information returned, including a placeholder flag that signals incomplete or stub coverage. This is genuinely useful transparency.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences carry substantial meaning without any waste. The first sentence states the operation and its returns; the second sentence gives the practical usage trigger. Every part 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?

The tool is a simple zero-parameter list operation, the output schema exists and can define return values, the annotations cover safety, and the description communicates what the operation is for and when to invoke it. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately needs no parameter-level explanation.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and resource ('jurisdictions'), and further specifies exactly what is included: federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions, provision counts, searchable-chunk counts, GIS status, and placeholder flags. It also distinguishes itself from the search-related siblings by framing this as a coverage-discovery tool.

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 gives explicit usage context: call this before searching to see what law is available and searchable. It implies contrast with law.search and law.get_node, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative tools, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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