cfpb_state_complaints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it returns counts and data per state, which clarifies the output shape, but does not disclose details like pagination or aggregation specifics. This level of additional context is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second and third sentences provide needed context (output type and use cases). Every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description clearly states that it returns compliant counts and data per state, which is essential. It also mentions filter compatibility, covering the main usage context. It does not describe pagination or behavior with no matching data, but for a read-only aggregation tool with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The description merely mentions the filters are the same as search, which is a helpful cross-reference but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline of 3 is 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 description states a specific verb ('Get'), an explicit resource ('complaint information broken down by state'), and a clear geographic aggregation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the state-level view, which is unique among CFPB tools like cfpb_complaint_trends (time trends) and cfpb_complaint_detail (individual complaints).

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 clear context for when to use it ('Useful for maps and state comparisons') and mentions that it applies the same filters as search, implying compatibility with existing search parameters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use-case guidance is sufficient.

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