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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description discloses result ordering (review count, then name) and failure behavior (city-not-found errors enumerate the state's known cities), which are genuinely useful traits not present in the structured fields.

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 purpose and scope, then usage condition, then input/ordering/error details and the alternative. Every sentence carries information; no filler or repetition.

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?

With annotations covering safety, a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and no nesting, the description supplies exactly the remaining pieces an agent needs: trigger condition, ordering, error fallback and the sibling to use instead.

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 100%, with examples for state/slug/code, limit bounds and category enum already documented, so the 3 baseline applies. The description's note that state accepts name, slug or two-letter code largely restates the schema, adding little beyond the city-error behavior.

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 (List) plus resource (haunts) and the precise scope (a US state, or one city within it), explicitly contrasting with the point-distance search done by scaremap_find_haunts. An agent can distinguish it from all three siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Call this when the user names a state or city ... and has no coordinates', and an explicit alternative for the opposite case (scaremap_find_haunts for distance search). The category enum also points to scaremap_categories for the valid list.

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