List jurisdictions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the states:read scope, the endpoint, curated NP/APRN data provenance, and a verification obligation. It does not mention pagination or rate limits.

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 core list action, followed by auth and then caveats in a logical order. No filler, though the legal-use caveat is somewhat dense.

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 zero-parameter list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, auth scope, data-source caveat, and a usage exclusion. It could be more explicit about what a 'summary' contains or whether results are paginated, but it is adequately complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meaning to add. The empty schema already communicates that this tool takes no arguments, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 every jurisdiction with its summary and names the backing endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_state, though 'every jurisdiction' implies the collection-level list.

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 rules out clinical or licensing decisions and instructs verification against cited board sources, which is useful usage context. However, it does not say when to choose list_states over get_state or search_requirements, so tool-selection guidance is incomplete.

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