list_supported_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the phrase 'with their capabilities' adds context about output content. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior or return format details, leaving some behavioral aspects unstated.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 low-complexity tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It communicates what is listed and that capabilities are included. However, the ambiguity around 'states' (e.g., US states vs. others) and the nature of 'capabilities' leaves minor 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by mentioning that the list includes capabilities, which suggests the output will provide more than just state names, but there is no need to explain parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('states') with a clear scope ('supported for license verification'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools verify_license and search_license by indicating it enumerates supported states rather than performing verification or searching.

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 implies usage for checking which states are supported, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or mention any exclusions. There is no direct alternative guidance, so the context is only implied.

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