legis_states

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states it lists jurisdictions and mentions backends, but does not disclose output format, whether the data is static, or any side effects (though listing implies none). The term 'backends' is ambiguous, leaving some behavioral detail unspecified.

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 a single sentence with zero fluff, front-loading the primary action ('List all 17...') and immediately providing the essential detail (which jurisdictions). Every word 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 parameterless utility that lists a fixed set of jurisdictions, the description is fully complete: it tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what it returns (the 17 jurisdictions with their backends). Without an output schema or nested objects, nothing more is needed for correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description correctly adds no parameter details since none exist, so this score 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 'List all 17 available German jurisdictions (BUND + 16 Bundesländer) with their backends' states a specific verb (List), a precise resource (17 jurisdictions), and a concrete detail (with backends). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search/get/toc tools by its unique function of enumerating jurisdictions.

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 implies that this tool provides the list of jurisdictions needed for other tools but does not explicitly state when to use it or compare with alternatives. While the purpose is unmistakable, there is no guidance on when one would call this versus a search tool, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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