list_supported_jurisdictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array with fields (code, full name, source, status) and mentions 'live or coming_soon' status, which gives clear behavioral insight. There is no contradiction.

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 concise, using a single line for purpose followed by three bullet points for usage guidelines and one sentence for return value. Every part is essential and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure. With no inputs, it fully covers behavioral expectations. The tool is simple, and the description is complete.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 explicitly states the tool lists supported US states with data source and availability. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('supported jurisdictions'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'verify_license' by implying this tool is for checking support before calling the other.

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 clearly states when to call the tool: to check state support, display options, or get data source URL. It provides explicit context but does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives, though the use cases are well-defined.

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