compare_jurisdictions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action and does not disclose output format, handling of missing data, or any limitations of the comparison, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler, effectively conveying the core function. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

While the schema covers inputs well, the lack of any output description and minimal behavioral context means an agent has incomplete information to anticipate the tool's response. The description is adequate but not comprehensive given no annotations or output schema.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including the enum for 'aspect' and the min 2 requirement for 'states'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers.

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 uses the verb 'compare' and identifies the resource as 'gambling regulations' between multiple states, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single-state details like licensing or fees. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinct.

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 implies a use case (comparing states) but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools or exclusions are referenced, so guidance is limited to an implied context.

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