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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is a 'static table' (no dynamic computation), and it explicitly says 'Stateless lookup: records no decision and leaves no dashboard timeline trace.' This gives the agent essential expectations about side effects and scope.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose, the second contrasts with an alternative, and the third adds stateless behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's static nature, provides a sample output ('CA gives 500 residents, CA AG, without unreasonable delay'), and clarifies its role relative to incident analysis. No further context is needed.

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 input schema already fully documents the 'state' parameter with description 'US 2-letter state code (CA, NY, TX, ...)'. The description adds a brief example ('CA gives 500 residents') but does not significantly extend the parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional semantic burden is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('lookup') and resource ('single US state's breach-notification window, AG recipient and resident threshold'), immediately clarifying the tool's function. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from breach_classify by stating it is 'not an incident ruling,' which differentiates it from the sibling 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Quick reference lookup' for a single state's static table. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use and alternative: 'When you have the actual incident facts and need a reportable / not-reportable decision with reasoning, use breach_classify instead.' This is a model of usage direction.

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