decode_state_code

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, performance characteristics). The bar is lowered due to annotations, but the description only covers purpose, not behavior beyond what's already declared.

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, no fluff. The first sentence announces the action and input, the second specifies the usage context. 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the essential scope: what it decodes, from what inputs, and what outputs are provided. No gaps remain.

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 the parameter 'value' is well-documented in the schema. The description reiterates that it accepts a code or GSTIN prefix, but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's description '2-digit state code or GSTIN.' Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool decodes Indian GST state code metadata from a code or GSTIN prefix, listing specific output fields (state name, abbreviation, capital, GST zone). It distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which perform this specific decode.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you need canonical state name, abbreviation, capital, and GST zone mapping,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use alternatives, but no sibling tool offers this functionality, so the omission is minor.

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