list_jurisdictions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation and states the default scope (all states and supported local jurisdictions). However, it does not disclose behavior such as how results are ordered, whether 'code' filters the list, or what errors or rate limits may apply, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise and easy to parse. It could earn a 5, but it omits any mention of the 'code' parameter, making it slightly under-specified for the tool's interface.

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 has an undocumented optional parameter, no output schema, and no guidance about alternative list tools, the description is not complete enough for an agent to use it reliably. It states the core purpose but leaves out parameter semantics and usage context, which are necessary for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, 'code', has a 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. Since the schema provides no meaning for this parameter and the description fails to compensate, an agent cannot determine what values are valid or what effect it has on the results.

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 identifies a distinct resource: 'official source routes for all states and supported local jurisdictions.' This clearly indicates what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_discovery_candidates, so it only partially differentiates.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mentions of prerequisites such as whether a 'code' parameter is needed. The context signals show a sibling list tool (list_discovery_candidates), but the description does not help an agent decide between them.

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