List Jurisdictions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical non-obvious behavior: it is free, requires no authentication, and returns a complete list without filtering. It also details the supported capabilities, providing context not available from annotations alone.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a practical usage note. No wasted words; every clause delivers meaningful information.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the exact content of the response (code, status, capabilities) and its purpose in the broader workflow, making the tool fully understandable.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description reinforces the no-parameter nature by saying 'Lists every' and not mentioning any filters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that.

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 ('Lists') and clearly identifies the resource ('every registered jurisdiction') while enumerating the exact attributes returned (code, status, capabilities). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning this as the prerequisite for verify_business and search_entities.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use it to confirm a state or country is supported and which verification tiers it offers before calling...'), naming the two alternative tools it should precede. This gives clear context for when to invoke this tool vs. others.

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