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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds valuable context about the data source (BTS 2020 National Transportation Noise Map) and the metric (share of residents ≥60 dB), which goes beyond 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose with examples and including all necessary details without superfluous information.

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 presence of multiple sibling tools, the description effectively contextualizes usage by directing to get_address_noise for addresses. It explains the data source and scope (3 cities), and with an output schema available, it covers return values adequately.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds the default value for limit (10) not present in the schema, and clarifies the allowed cities for the city parameter, providing additional utility.

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 uses specific examples like 'loudest neighborhoods in Los Angeles' to clearly state the tool's purpose of providing neighborhood noise rankings. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_address_noise by explicitly directing users to that tool for single address queries.

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 instructs users to 'Pass the city name; optional limit' and points to get_address_noise for single addresses. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus other siblings like get_city_noise, leaving some ambiguity.

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