List the states this server covers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return contents (guide link and review date) and that the result set is 'every' covered state, i.e. unfiltered and complete. It does not mention ordering or size, which keeps it below 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded ahead of the return description. Every clause 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-param, read-only discovery tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, nothing is missing: the agent knows when to call it, that it takes no arguments, and roughly what it returns. The output schema carries the return-shape detail the description does not need to repeat.

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-parameter tool, so per the baseline this lands at 4. The description's phrasing ('every covered state') quietly confirms there is nothing to filter by, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('list'/'every covered state') and even states the payload ('guide link and review date'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It only weakly differentiates from the sibling compare_states ('before comparing many states' implies but never names it), and says nothing about get_deposit_rules.

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?

'Use when the user asks which states are covered, or before comparing many states' gives a clear triggering condition and a sequencing hint that steers the agent toward this discovery step before comparison. It stops short of an explicit exclusion or a named alternative, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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