Compare security deposit rules across states

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (one row per state, each with its own citation) and the handling of uncovered places by input position.

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 sentences with zero filler: trigger condition first, input format second, return behavior third. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and it still explains the row-per-state/citation structure and the uncovered-state behavior. Annotations cover safety and the single parameter is fully documented, so nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top: the two-letter format convention and, more importantly, the fallback semantics for entries that are not covered, which the schema does not express.

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 (compare) and resource (security deposit rules) with explicit scope (2 to 6 US states). This clearly separates it from get_deposit_rules (single-state lookup) and list_covered_states (enumeration) without either schema being opened.

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 opening 'Use when the user wants to compare... between 2 to 6 US states' plus the concrete landlord-with-multiple-rentals example gives a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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