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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable context: it is a 'verbatim-verified summary' with a verified date, plain language, and not legal advice. There are no contradictions 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 moderately concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with query examples. It covers purpose, scope, and disclaimer. The list of cities could be slightly more compact, but overall effective.

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 single-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (quiet hours, decibel limits, complaint channel, etc.) and which cities it covers. No gaps remain.

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% (one required parameter 'city' with example 'Boston' or 'Columbus, OH'). The description reiterates these examples but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides.

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 questions about noise ordinances, quiet hours, decibel limits, and complaint channels. It specifies cities covered and distinguishes from siblings like get_city_noise and get_us_city_noise_exposure by focusing on ordinance text rather than exposure data.

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 explicit use cases (e.g., 'what are quiet hours in Boston', '<city> noise ordinance') and notes it is a summary of official code. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but sibling tool names imply separate purposes.

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