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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: that it returns a modeled dBA band (not a measurement), explains the floor meaning ('below 45 dBA...'), and confirms Continental US limitation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is very concise at ~60 words across two sentences. It front-loads the common user questions, then efficiently explains key constraints. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.

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 that the tool has 3 optional parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains the return value (dBA band), the data source, the geographic limitation, and the significance of low values. No additional information is needed.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by specifying that 'lat/lng' pair can be used instead of an address and noting the US-only restriction, which provides helpful extra context beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool answers specific questions about noise at a US address using modeled transportation noise data. It explicitly mentions the data source (federal BTS 2020 map) and geographic scope (Continental US), distinguishing it from siblings like get_city_noise or get_europe_city_noise.

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 provides good context on what the tool does (modeled, not measured) and clarifies the meaning of low values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_neighborhood_noise, though the block-by-block granularity is implied.

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