List customer API jurisdictions (customer API key)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the LIENDEADLINE_API_KEY requirement and the states:read scope, plus the return shape (count + codes), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the auth requirement and return content, then exclusions, then no-params. Efficient overall, though 'Read-only' is mild redundancy against the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 compensates by describing the return (count and two-letter codes), the auth prerequisite, and the exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call this zero-parameter read tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the description correctly states 'Takes no parameters.' Baseline 4 applies since no param semantics are 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the count and two-letter codes of jurisdictions the customer invoice calculation accepts. It actively distinguishes itself from the sibling list_state_lien_guides by stating it does not list editorial guides or reviewed-baseline states, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Frames usage by identifying the audience/tool family ('Customer API tool') and the required key/scope, and rules out the guide-oriented sibling use case. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly, so the guidance is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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