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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely valuable behavioral caveat: this lookup cannot verify state compliance. Beyond that it does not describe error behavior for unknown states or the shape of partial results, so it adds moderate value over the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return values and followed by the critical prerequisite caveat. The enumerated field list is dense but each item is real information. No filler or restated name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description largely compensates by naming the returned fields, which is its strongest contribution. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the complete absence of state/city format guidance leaves a real gap an agent can trip on.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It never says whether 'state' expects a two-letter code or a full name, nor what 'city' changes about the rules response or what the empty-string default means. The word 'state-rules' hints at the state parameter but adds no usable format or effect detail.

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 and resource (return the state-rules response) and enumerates the exact outputs: GREEN/YELLOW/RED/UNKNOWN, managed_allowed, verification, missing requirements, fees and disclosures. That is far more specific than a restated name. It does not reference the sibling get_public_guide, so an agent gets no explicit contrast, keeping 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?

Gives a clear calling context: use this before ordering, and be aware that state verification is a prerequisite this lookup cannot satisfy. That is actionable when-to-use guidance with an important exclusion. It stops short of naming which tool does perform verification, so the agent must infer the follow-up.

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