public_land_state

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declared, the description reinforces this with 'No network call' and goes further by describing what a result contains (principal meridians for public-land states, Ohio's surveys, Spanish and French claims). It does not discuss error cases for invalid state input, but adds real context beyond the 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 key question is front-loaded and each following sentence carries information about why a nil result occurs and what the answer includes. Slightly verbose and the mid-sentence line break in the first paragraph is awkward, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return content itself, and it does: state status, where the first-title records live, principal meridians, and special survey/claim cases. It could be marginally more explicit about the response shape, but an agent has enough to call it and interpret results correctly.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage ('A state, as a two-letter code or a name'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no input-format detail beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 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 opening question states exactly what the tool answers: whether a state was federal public domain and, if not, who granted its land. This is clearly distinct from coordinate/PLSS siblings like plss_locate and plss_from_point, and the 'No network call' note signals it is a local reference lookup.

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 explains the situation in which the tool matters: in a never-federal state a patent search comes back nil, and that nil says nothing about the family, so the agent needs the state-level provenance instead. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions (e.g. 'do not use for PLSS coordinates'), so it stops short of a 5.

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