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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantial semantic context on top: outcome means only the recorded motion, approval is authorization not a signed contract, amounts are printed ceilings not money spent, and an empty result is not proof of no ALPR use. This is exactly the interpretive context an agent needs to avoid misreading results.

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 core purpose and then the filtering options and caveats. It runs long and some caveats (e.g. 'no row means no qualifying action') are repeated in the schema descriptions, but nearly every sentence conveys decision-relevant interpretation rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (action timelines, source links, vendors, dollar figures). Combined with the caveat semantics, an agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret its output.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for the tricky fields: it clarifies that disposition is 'only the motion as recorded' and that amounts are printed figures rather than actual spend. That lifts it above baseline, though most parameter semantics still live in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Finds official city and county automated license plate reader matters in the MORVS License Plate Reader Register.' An agent can tell this is a local-decision search, though it never explicitly names the close sibling plate_reader_state_law to draw the boundary between local decisions and state statutes.

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?

Lists the available filters (state, jurisdiction, vendor, outcome, subject, year, query) which implies usage, but never states when to prefer this over plate_reader_state_law or other siblings, nor any exclusions.

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