Get CE rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: the required ce:read scope, the curated nature of the data, and the caveat that values must be verified against the cited board source. It does not discuss rate limits or response shape, but the added auth and provenance detail is substantial.

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 auth, then data caveats. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the 'not instructions' and 'not for clinical or licensing decisions' disclaimers overlap slightly.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, data provenance, and legal caveats. Only the shape of the returned rules/sources is left implicit.

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% and the code parameter is fully documented with a pattern and example, so the schema carries the load. The description only reinforces that the code identifies a jurisdiction, adding little beyond the schema.

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 continuing-education rules with sources') and even pins the endpoint (GET /v1/states/{code}/ce), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_state or search_requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives a clear when-not ('Not for clinical or licensing decisions') and a usage obligation ('verify against the cited board source before relying on a value'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the excluded cases, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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