state_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about what the output contains (Socrata portals, dataset category counts, GIS availability). This goes beyond the annotation while remaining consistent with a read-only overview tool.

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 concise sentences: purpose, key output details, and usage guidance. No filler or redundancy; information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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, read-only list tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description fully covers what the tool does, what information it returns, and when to use it. The optional parameter behavior is handled by the schema. No gaps are apparent.

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 single optional parameter 'state' has 100% schema description coverage ('Optional: show detailed coverage for a specific state code'), so the description does not need to repeat it. The tool description implies the parameter's purpose in context ('before querying a specific state') but does not add new semantics beyond the schema.

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 lists all US states in the registry with their data coverage. It distinguishes itself from siblings like state_query or state_crime by focusing on the registry overview rather than detailed state data.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to see what data is available before querying a specific state.' It implies the alternative of querying a specific state directly but does not name a specific sibling tool or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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