List Jurisdictions

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses exactly which columns each row carries, including document-type classification, live-versus-saved text provenance, and whether a medical fee schedule object exists. It does not state that the call is read-only, its cost/latency, or that the set is exactly 51 rows and fixed—minor gaps given the strong data disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope before the row detail. The second sentence is a dense enumeration that slightly overlaps the output schema, but each item is a distinct field an agent might filter on, so it mostly 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing with an output schema, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing: scope, row contents and fixed cardinality are all stated, and return structure is covered by the schema.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for and the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals a no-argument, whole-set listing, matching the empty schema with additionalProperties=false.

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 ('List') and a precisely bounded resource ('the 50 states and the District of Columbia in the research wiki'), which an agent can tell apart from the singular get_jurisdiction sibling. It stops short of naming or contrasting the alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_jurisdiction or the other get_* siblings, nor preconditions. Usage is only implied: enumerate the jurisdiction set to find a postal code before drilling into a single jurisdiction with get_jurisdiction.

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