abc_list_states

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the return content adequately but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a stateless, read-only list tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states action and content, second provides usage guidance. No extraneous words, front-loaded with 'Returns metadata.' Highly efficient.

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 simple, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. It lists example output fields and advises initial use. However, it could mention if the output contains all fields from the schema or if authentication is required, but overall adequate.

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, so no parameter information is needed. The schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by detailing the output fields, which is beyond the schema's scope, earning a high score.

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 it returns metadata for all supported US states, listing specific fields (agency name, SLA, extraction method, CAPTCHA). The phrase 'Use this first' distinguishes it from siblings like abc_lookup_license, establishing its role as a preliminary overview tool.

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 advises using this tool first when building a multi-state workflow to understand coverage. It gives a clear context of use but does not elaborate on when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the implied sibling relationship.

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