Get a state's security deposit rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the response carries a citation (guide link, review date, statute, disclaimer), and a 'not_covered' status must be surfaced to the user rather than answered from memory. Some return-shape detail overlaps the existing output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and scope, then input, then output, then the two conditional caveats — a logical order with no filler sentences. Every clause carries actionable information for the caller.

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?

Covers trigger, input format, return contents (including citation fields), the non-covered edge case, and the optional-parameter rule. With an output schema present, the description need not detail field structure, and nothing needed to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by giving real gating logic for include_faqs ('only when the question goes beyond the rules — cleaning, painting, normal wear and tear') rather than just restating the boolean. The state-code guidance ('Nevada → NV') largely duplicates the schema's own example.

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+resource (security deposit rules), scopes it to exactly one US state, and enumerates the content returned (cap, return deadline, itemized list, penalty, condition records). The single-state scope implicitly separates it from compare_states and list_covered_states without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks about...') and adds a clear conditional rule for include_faqs plus a fallback instruction for 'not_covered' responses. It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives, so the agent must still infer when to prefer compare_states for multi-state questions.

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