cfpb_state_complaints

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's claim of returning data is consistent. The addition that filters mirror search adds behavioral context without contradicting annotations. No hidden destructive behavior is implied.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the main purpose. No extraneous information. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient for its scope.

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?

While the description covers purpose and filters, it omits return format details (e.g., list of states, fields) and potential limitations. Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description is adequate but not fully 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that parameters are filters, adding no new semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states it returns complaint data broken down by state, specifying 'geographic view' and 'complaint counts and data for each state'. This distinct purpose differentiates it from sibling tools like cfpb_search_complaints (individual complaints) and cfpb_complaint_aggregations (other aggregations).

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 mentions usefulness for 'maps and state comparisons' and that it applies the same filters as search, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct references to alternatives, leaving room for confusion among sibling tools.

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