list_jurisdictions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the endpoint does not consume API credits and implies harmless read-only behavior. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or potential rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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, with two focused sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral note (no API credits). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it without gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameters. According to rules, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description does not miss any opportunity to add parameter-related value.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('all regulatory jurisdictions'), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_regulations and check_compliance by highlighting its role in providing canonical codes and regulation counts.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool ('discover the universe of supported regions and canonical jurisdiction codes') and how to use the output with other tools ('pass to other tools like search_regulations or check_compliance'), making context and alternatives clear.

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