Get the lien guide for one state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the response is roughly 4 KB of JSON, an unknown state code produces an error, and the day counts are editorial summaries rather than computed deadlines — an important trust caveat not conveyed by any structured field.

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 paragraph is front-loaded with the return shape, then usage conditions, then error behavior, then the editorial disclaimer, then auth. Every sentence carries distinct information (payload fields, use cases, error case, trust caveat, access model) with no 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so explicitly (rules, deadline_rows, faqs, source_url, ~4 KB). Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering error behavior and the editorial disclaimer, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the two-letter code format, case-insensitivity and example are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the error behavior for an unrecognized state code, giving the agent validation semantics the schema does not encode.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it returns LienDeadline's editorial mechanics lien and preliminary notice guide for one state or DC, and enumerates the exact payload (rules, deadline_rows, faqs, source_url). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the calculation sibling by framing the output as editorial reference material rather than computed deadlines.

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?

It states clear when-to-use conditions ('For questions about how a state's lien or notice rules work, why a deadline falls where it does, or which statute applies') and notes the failure mode for an unknown state code. It does not explicitly name calculate_supplier_deadlines or list_state_lien_guides as alternatives, so the routing signal is implied rather than spelled out.

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