List supported jurisdictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a read-only retrieval operation ('Returns...') and fully defines the scope ('all 50 states plus DC'), leaving no ambiguity about what data will be returned. It does not discuss output format or edge cases, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and return value are front-loaded, and the usage hint is placed at the end. Every sentence adds useful 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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the exact set of jurisdictions covered, and when to use it. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already covers 100% of its (empty) parameter surface. The description does not need to add parameter detail. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and the description focuses on the return value instead.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('two-letter codes of every US jurisdiction with deadline rules available'), and precise scope ('all 50 states plus DC'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_lien_deadline and get_state_lien_guide, which clearly serve different functions.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to check a code before calculating.' This provides clear usage context tied to the calculation workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are different enough that no confusion remains.

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