Get Compliance By State

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns regulatory information, flags that it is not legal advice, and adds a daily-overtime hint (CA, AK, NV, CO). This is meaningful supplementary context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents, followed by targeted usage examples, an explicit exclusion, and a useful hint. It is slightly verbose due to the example questions, but each part adds practical guidance, so the length is justified.

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-only lookup with a rich schema, an output schema, and annotations already present, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, when not to use it, the non-advice caveat, and an operational hint about daily-overtime states.

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 single 'state' parameter is already well described as accepting either a two-letter code or full state name. The description adds value with concrete example calls such as state='CA' and state='Tennessee', reinforcing accepted formats and making invocation unambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the event staffing compliance summary for a US state', and lists what it returns (minimum wage, overtime rules, state-specific quirks). It also distinguishes itself from get_role_pricing by explicitly disclaiming rates, so an agent can clearly separate this tool from its siblings.

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 gives concrete example questions that should trigger this tool, explicitly says 'DO NOT use for rates (use get_role_pricing)', and includes a 'NOT legal advice' caveat. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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