list_jurisdictions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses substantive behavior: the per-jurisdiction payload contents (code, aliases, languages, sources with licence notes, supported tools, per-tool `filters`, identifier formats) and the alias normalization rule ("uk" -> "gb"). It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is static or live, which keeps it off 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 imperative "Call this first", then the payload inventory, then the argument behavior — a sensible information hierarchy with no filler sentences. The middle enumeration is dense but every clause maps to something an agent needs before making follow-up calls.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description goes further and tells the agent what fields in that output mean operationally (which code to pass, which filters each search tool accepts, identifier formats) — exactly the information needed to plan subsequent calls. For a one-parameter discovery tool, nothing material 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 description coverage is 0% and the schema only types `query` as string|null, so the description must compensate and does: it explains the matching domains (code, alias, name), gives concrete example queries ("nl", "united", "netherlands"), and critically explains the two response shapes — exact match returns one jurisdiction in full, many matches return a compact index.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "List the jurisdictions this server covers." It also distinguishes itself from the siblings (`search_caselaw`, `search_legislation`, etc.) by explaining that the returned jurisdiction code is what you pass to "the other tools", so an agent knows this is the discovery/entry point rather than a search tool.

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?

"Call this first" is an explicit sequencing directive that tells the agent when to invoke it relative to every sibling. It further implies the alternative (skipping this and guessing a jurisdiction code) by noting that aliases are accepted and codes are what the other tools consume.

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