list_jurisdictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return data (MAC names, codes, states) and includes an example, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then details the output, usage guidance, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a read-only lookup tool. It explains what it does, what it returns, and how to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like response format or limitations.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 specific action ('Get list'), resource ('Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) jurisdictions'), and output details ('MAC names, jurisdiction codes, and covered states'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_prior_auth' or 'get_policy' by focusing on jurisdiction lookup rather than policy or authorization operations.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this to find the right jurisdiction for a patient's state.' This provides clear context for application, though it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for a 5 given the explicit purpose.

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