Get one jurisdiction

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material context beyond them: the required auth scope, the curated-data provenance, the instruction to verify against the cited board source, and the terms-of-use restriction — exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and endpoint, then prerequisites, then caveats — a sensible order with no filler. The legal/curation disclaimers are slightly dense for a read tool but each carries actionable information for an agent.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level ('full NP/APRN requirement record with sources'), the auth prerequisite, and data-reliability caveats. It does not describe error behavior for invalid or unsupported codes, which is the only notable gap.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the two-letter US state/territory code and its pattern. The description's '{code}' reference and 'jurisdiction' framing add only marginal meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('One jurisdiction's full NP/APRN requirement record') and even pins the endpoint (GET /v1/states/{code}), so the agent knows exactly what is fetched. It implies single-jurisdiction scope versus the plural siblings (list_states, search_requirements) but never names them, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 provides a real prerequisite ('Needs the states:read scope') and a negative boundary ('Not for clinical or licensing decisions'), which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over get_state_ce or search_requirements, so the routing decision is left to inference from the resource name alone.

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