List Project State Codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining pagination behavior ('Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata') and confirming it returns a JSON array. No contradictions.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. It covers usage, return type, pagination, required params, and API endpoint without unnecessary detail. Slightly verbose on API path but overall 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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, pagination, and required parameters. Annotations handle safety/transparency. It lacks error handling or example responses, but these are not critical given the low complexity.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., project_id as 'unique identifier for the project'). The description repeats that project_id and country_code are required and mentions pagination control, but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the list of states for a country.' It specifies the resource (state codes), scope (by country via project_id and country_code), and differentiates from sibling CRUD tools by being a read-only list operation.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to enumerate Directory records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also mentions required parameters, guiding when to invoke. No direct alternatives exist among siblings, so no exclusion is needed.

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