Get Jurisdiction

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; "Return" signals a read-only lookup, but there is no statement about permissions, error behavior for an unknown state, or pagination. It does add real value by defining what a catalog entry contains and the meaning of the `coverage` and `retrieval` values, which goes beyond the schema.

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?

Payload is front-loaded in the first sentence, with parameter semantics immediately after and no filler. Slightly more elaborate than necessary given an output schema exists, but every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter read with an output schema present, the description covers the parameter format and the meaning of nested catalog fields, which is what an agent needs. Lacking only failure/edge-case behavior and sibling routing.

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 0% – the `state` property has no documentation at all – so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the accepted forms (postal code or jurisdiction name) with concrete examples (CA, California). No constraints on invalid input are given, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact payload: agency, primary-law citation, and regulation catalog for a state. It implicitly separates itself from list_jurisdictions and get_regulations (metadata/catalog vs. the regulation text itself) but never names the siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied – the agent can deduce this is the lookup to call before get_regulations, but there is no explicit "use this when..." statement, no exclusions, and no mention of how it relates to list_jurisdictions.

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