search_states

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes the return is a matching list, but discloses nothing about result limits, pagination, empty/ambiguous-name behavior, or whether country_code with an empty name returns all states. For an unannotated read tool this is a notable gap.

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 Args/Returns layout is front-loaded with the core purpose sentence and each line is short. The 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, a small amount of waste but nothing bloated.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with an output schema available to describe results and no annotations to reconcile, the definition covers both parameters and the read-only nature is implied by 'Search'. It is essentially complete, missing only edge-case behavior and sibling routing.

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 0% (only titles and empty-string defaults), so the description does the compensating work: it tells the agent that name allows partial matches and country_code is a two-letter code. Both parameters gain semantics the schema lacks, though it doesn't clarify default/empty behavior.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Search for states/provinces') and the key filtering capability ('by name and optionally filter by country'). It is clear what it does, though it never names the closest sibling (get_states_in_country) to disambiguate when a search-by-name is preferable to a straight country listing.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'search by name' suggests a name-driven lookup, and country_code narrows results. With siblings like get_states_in_country and get_all_regions, the definition should say when to pick this one over those, but it offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives.

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