list_states

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: 'No network call' discloses a static, side-effect-free local read, and 'keyless, public-domain official registries' discloses the data provenance and auth model. It does not describe the return shape beyond 'how each is addressed', which is the one remaining 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?

A single sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and the no-network guarantee appended as a supporting clause. Every phrase carries information and nothing is redundant.

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-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it lists, why the data is trustworthy, and that no network is involved. Only the shape of 'how each is addressed' is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input contract, and additionalProperties=false in the schema confirms it takes no arguments.

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 ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('US states currently verifiable through this server'), which is clearly distinct from the action-oriented siblings verify_business and screen_sanctions. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrast, so it does not reach the top band.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a discovery/introspection call to run before verify_business, but the description never says 'call this first' or 'use this instead of X'. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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