cfpb_state_complaints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds useful context about return behavior ('Returns complaint counts and data for each state') and filter compatibility with search, which goes beyond the minimal annotation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output, then usage context. Every sentence is informative with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and the schema covers all parameters. Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format ('counts and data for each state'), though 'data' could be more specific. Overall, sufficient for a state breakdown tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that filters align with search, but it doesn't expand on individual parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Get complaint information broken down by state (geographic view).' It distinguishes from sibling tools like cfpb_search_complaints and cfpb_complaint_trends by emphasizing the state-level geographic breakdown and utility for maps and comparisons.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for maps and state comparisons.' It also references the same filters as search, implying it's an alternative for state-level views. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it.

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